DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, “the external optimization unit is configured to define an adjustment point corresponding to a setpoint for adjusting the gap between the at least one pair of rollers”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the external optimization unit is configured to define an adjustment point corresponding to a setpoint for adjusting the gap between the at least one pair of rollers” renders the claim indefinite since the specification does not provide sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill to determine the structure associated with “the external optimization unit”.
For example, paragraph 47 states “the PLC 134 is connected to…the external optimizing unit 136…connections 135 are connections that allow signals to be transmitted” and “signal transmissions able to take place through physical or remote connections 135, not being limited to any specific signal transmission type”. Paragraph 51 states the “external optimization unit A feed speed, the gap between the rollers…to generate adjustment points…are sent to a position controller 137 in the PLC 134”. The above cited portions only disclose the functions which the external optimization unit is capable of performing, not the actual structure of said unit. Likewise, the drawings and the specification as a whole do not provide detail regarding the structure of said unit. If this is not the case, Examiner requests Applicant to point to where the structure is taught. Further, the means for signal transmission is non-limiting, and it is unclear if the external optimization unit requires any structure at all e.g., the unit is an operator visually receiving information and manually providing, through experience, an adjustment point corresponding to a setpoint for adjusting the gap.
See also MPEP 2181 II.A. which states the following:
35 U.S.C. 112(f) states that a claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure…described in the specification and equivalents thereof." "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112 ]." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)
"[a] bare statement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclose structure" in the context of a means plus function limitation. Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technology Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 952, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
Further regarding claim 1, in line 6 the limitation “the gain cracker including at least one pair of rollers defining an adjustable gap for cracking grains” lacks antecedent basis since there is no previous indication of the grain cracker including “at least one pair of rollers defining an adjustable gap for cracking grains”. The rejection can be overcome by deleting “including at least one pair of rollers defining an adjustable gap for cracking grains” from line 6 and inserting “at least one pair of rollers defining an adjustable gap for cracking grains” in line 5 after “an external optimization unit connected to the PLC,”.
In line 13, the limitation “one or more characteristics of cracked grains coming from the at least one pair of rollers, including particle size” renders the claim indefinite. While it is clear that one of the characteristics is “particle size” as claimed, it is unclear what other “characteristics” are encompassed by the limitation “or more”. The specification does not provide further detail regarding such “characteristics”, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the limitation.
Claims 2-3 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketting (US 5,154,364) in view of Tagawa et al. (US 2019/0176158 A1), Machler et al. (US 4,363,448), and Tracey et al. (US 2020/0188925 A1).
It is noted that Ketting is Applicant’s admitted prior art (paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 1, Ketting teaches a system for a grain cracker comprising a motor 19, at least one pair of rollers 41 and 42, and a system comprising computer 31, position indicator 22, switch 34, input-output device 35, computer 32, memory 33, and signal lines 38 connected to the motor (figures 1 and 4; column 4 lines 45-46; column 6 lines 28-60). Since the system comprising the computer, position indicator, switch, input-output device, memory and signal lines is configured to automatically adjust desired settings of the rollers (column 1 lines 13-19), the control performed by programming (column 2 lines 48-52; column 3 lines 54-57; column 7 line 2), the system above is construed to be a type of PLC.
Regarding the system being “modular”, Ketting teaches subassemblies of the system are capable of being readily added to or removed from a roller mill as a unit, which can be fitted at any subsequent time (column 2 lines 34-37; claim 1). Thus, the system is construed to be a “modular system for a grain cracker”.
Ketting does not teach an external optimization unit connected to the PLC, wherein the external optimization unit is configured to define an adjustment point corresponding to a setpoint for adjusting the gap between the at least one pair of rollers, based on characteristics of the grains to be cracked, wherein the characteristics of the grains to be cracked include a moisture content and a temperature of the grains to be cracked, wherein the PLC is configured to receive the adjustment point from the external optimization unit and drive the motor.
In view of the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) above, the “external optimization unit” is interpreted to include any structure capable of performing the claimed function.
Tagawa et al. teaches an apparatus for controlling a milling roll machine (figures 1 and 3-4; abstract), where the opening/closing control of the roll gap is performed according to a temperature of the raw material before passing through the rolls, the temperature detected by a sensor “S” in order to calculate a temperature difference between the grain before passing through the rolls and the temperature after passing through the rolls, and controlling the gap to prevent the temperature difference from exceeding a predetermined value (paragraphs 17 and 65). Thus, the system prevents degradation of quality of the product due to high temperature, obtains uniform milling, improves yield, milling efficiency, and saves energy (paragraph 64). The control is performed by central computation control apparatus 50, which performs automatic control of the gap between the rollers based on the measured temperature (figures 7-8; paragraph 63). The apparatus 50 is therefore construed to be a type of “optimization unit”.
Machler et al. teaches an apparatus for milling cereal (abstract) comprising mill rolls 230 and 231 (figure 6), where the gap between the rolls can be controlled by a comparator device and servomotor in response to signals as is known in the art (column 9 lines 32, 35-38, and 55-64). Computer device 30 comprises a programmed processor 40 and storage or memory 42 which control the gap between the rollers (column 10 lines 56-62), where the processor is provided with sensing means 45 which provides signals of various conditions, such as moisture content of the wheat to be milled, to modify the desired parameter values of the roll gap (column 11 lines 15-21, 26-27, 29-30, and 45-47; claim 8). The system allows the experience of a head miller to be stored in a computer such that the computer can make use of the experience in setting the various process elements to mimic the miller’s own manner of operating the plant, where the appropriate programming monitors the actual values of process parameters so that in the event of certain limits being exceeded, the relevant process element can be shut down or other suitable alarm given for safety purposes, and the sequence of application can control safely the start-up and shut-down procedures, as well as operating in a steady state in a milling operation (column 15 line 18 to column 16 line 4). Thus, the system is construed to be a type of “external optimization unit”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ketting to include an external optimization unit configured to define an adjustment point based on the moisture content and temperature of the grains to be cracked, the PLC configured to receive the adjustment point from the external optimization unit and drive the motor between the rollers in accordance with the adjustment point, since the reference already teaches “external” computer 37 connected to the system construed above to be the PLC, where such computing devices are known to be programmable to facilitate automatic control of processes, since the reference already suggests wanting to control roller gap distance to provide protection means to the mill (column 6 lines 47-49), and therefore to provide supporting and/or auxiliary protection means, since the prior art recognizes parameters such as roller gap distance can be controlled based on signals from a computing device based on received temperature and moisture data of the grains to be cracked, in order to ensure optimal product quality, uniform milling, and improved yield and milling efficiency, since there is no evidence of record indicating unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, see MPEP 2143 I.(A) and (C).
Ketting does not teach defining the adjustment point further based one or more characteristics of cracked grains coming from the at least one pair of rollers, including particle size.
Tracey et al. teaches a system and method for operating a milling apparatus with grinding rolls and a variety of sensors sensing aspects of the milling process (abstract), where the sensors include a particle size detector 52 for detecting a characteristic size of the particles passing through a specific point in the grinding apparatus (paragraph 18). Therefore, the particle size detector 52 is construed to sense a particle size characteristic of the cracked grains “coming from the at least one pair of rollers”. The system includes control apparatus 30 including a processor 32 and sensor interface 40 for receiving data or signals from the sensors and transmit sensor signals to the process for utilization in the operation of the system, where actuator interface 42 sends signals to various actuators of the apparatus to make adjustments (paragraph 17). If detected particle size is not without the desired size range, the position of the gap between the rolls can be adjusted (paragraphs 22 and 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ketting to include particle size particle size as a characteristic of the cracked grains coming from the at least one pair of rollers for the same reasons stated for the combination applied above, since the prior art recognizes adjusting roller gap based on detected particle size, to ensure over- or under-sized particles are treated with an appropriate gap size, thereby ensuring desired characteristics of the cracked grains are obtained, and to prevent excessive wear on the grinder.
Regarding claim 2, Ketting teaches the modular system is associated with an existing cracker by connecting an axle of the motor 19 to an adjusting spindle 8, which by rotation moves a setting arm 9 above fixed pivot bearing 10 to adjust the gap between the rollers 41,42 (figure 1; column 4 lines 58-60), the spindle therefore construed to be a type of “screw axle”. The rotation of the screw axle is obtained by connecting the axle of the motor 19 to the screw axle 8 via slip clutch 20, sprocket 21, and transmission chain 18 (column 5 lines 6-10), therefore the system is construed to teach “connecting an axle of the motor to a screw axle”.
Claim 3 is rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ketting in view of Tagawa et al., Machler et al. and Tracey et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US 10,322,487 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Ketting teaches the connection between the axle of the motor and the screw axle as stated for claim 2, but does not teach the connection is performed through a mechanical reduction gearbox.
Hansen et al. teaches a roll grinding apparatus (figure 1; abstract), where motors 20 and 22 drive movement via a system of driver pulleys and belts (column 4 line 61 to column 5 line 4). However, the reference further teaches that other means for transferring rotation may be used, such as a gearbox with suitable sized gears that provide an effect of a reduction in rotational speed (column 5 lines 5-10), understood in the art to be a reduction gearbox. The reference thus establishes equivalency between a belt and pulley driving system and a reduction gearbox driving system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ketting to connect the motor and screw axle by mechanical reduction gearbox since the reference already teaches motor 19 is geared (column 5 lines 5-7), since the prior art recognizes driving means for roller type devices include a reduction gearbox, since such devices are known in the art to facilitate fine adjustments by reducing the ratio of movement between the motor and device being driven, since there is no evidence of record indicating unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and as a substitution of art recognized equivalents suitable for the same purpose of transferring driving motion.
Response to Arguments
Upon further consideration, the interpretation of the “external optimization unit” structure applied in the previous Office Action is withdrawn. The limitation “the external optimization unit is configured to define an adjustment point corresponding to a setpoint for adjusting the gap between the at least one pair of rollers” necessitates interpretation under 35 USC 112(f), and is interpreted as such in the instant Office Action. However, the specification does not provide sufficient detail regarding the structure of “the external optimization unit”, and thus the limitation in question necessitated rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite. See also MPEP 2181 II.A.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered, but the amendments to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Tracey et al. is relied on to show that a particle size detector can be used to determine the size of particles passing through a specific point in the grinding apparatus, and adjusting the gap between the rollers based on the detected size. Ketting, Tagawa, and Machler are not relied on to teach the amended feature.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reason stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights