The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “auger system” in Claims 10-20, “first coupling device” in Claims 13 and 14, and “second coupling device” in Claims 13 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banjo US 20190032412 (hereafter Banjo).
Regarding Claim 1, Banjo anticipates:
1. An auger (assembly shown in Figure 1) comprising:
a cylindrical body (bit 2);
a first channel (labeled in attached Figures 4 and 5 below) helically defined in the cylindrical body (shown in attached Figure 4 below);
a second channel (labeled in attached Figures 4 and 5 below) helically defined in the cylindrical body (shown in attached Figure 4 below);
a first conduit (apertures 30) defined in the cylindrical body (through blade mounting member 14a), the first conduit including a first sloped portion (hexagonal shaped recessed surface shown in attached Figure 4 below);
a second conduit (apertures 30) defined in the cylindrical body (through blade mounting member 14b), the second conduit including a second sloped portion (hexagonal shaped recessed surface shown in attached Figure 4 below);
a first end mill (cutting blade 16a) formed in a first cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 below) defined in the cylindrical body (shown mounted in Figure 8); and
a second end mill (cutting blade 16b) formed in a second cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 below) defined in the cylindrical body (shown mounted in Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
1412
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Banjo anticipates:
2. The auger of claim 1, wherein the first channel (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) is located approximately 180 degrees (shown in attached Figures 4 and 5 above) around the cylindrical body (bit 2) with respect to the second channel (labeled in attached Figure 4 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Banjo anticipates:
3. The auger of claim 1, wherein the first conduit (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) is located approximately 180 degrees around the cylindrical body (bit 2) with respect to the second conduit (labeled in attached Figure 4 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Banjo anticipates:
4. The auger of claim 1, wherein the first conduit (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) and the second conduit (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) are closed (shown in attached Figure 4 above) with respect to a radial exterior of the cylindrical body (bit 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Banjo anticipates:
5. The auger of claim 1, wherein the first cavity (labeled in attached Figure 5 above) is located approximately 180 degrees around the cylindrical body (bit 2) with respect to the second cavity (labeled in attached Figure 5 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Banjo anticipates:
6. The auger of claim 1, wherein the first cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 above) and the second cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 above) are formed such that the first end mill (cutting blade 16a) and the second end mill (cutting blade 16b) coupled to the first cavity and the second cavity, respectively, (shown in Figure 8) are at least one of aligned with an axis of the cylindrical body, have a positive rake angle, have an axial rake angle, or combinations thereof (shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 7, Banjo anticipates:
7. The auger of claim 6, wherein the first end mill (cutting blade 16a) and the second end mill (cutting blade 16b) are indexable with respect to the first cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 above) and the second cavity (notch 17 labeled in attached Figure 5 above), respectively (shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Banjo anticipates:
8. The auger of claim 1, further comprising a center aperture (labeled in attached Figure 5 above) defined in the cylindrical body (bit 2) along an axis of the cylindrical body and at a center of the cylindrical body (shown in attached Figure 5 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjo US 20190032412 (hereafter Banjo) in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 9, Banjo teaches:
9. The auger of claim 1, further comprising:
a first primary alignment aperture (first though hole 28a) defined in a first end (top end of male extension 26 – smaller diameter end) of the cylindrical body (bit 2);
a second primary alignment aperture (second though hole 28b) defined in the first end of the cylindrical body (bit 2)(shown in attached Figure 4 above);
a first secondary alignment aperture (labeled in attached Figure 4 above) defined in a second end (center support 15 of male extension 26 – larger diameter end) of the cylindrical body opposite the first end; and
a second secondary alignment aperture (see discussion below) defined in the second end of the cylindrical body.
Banjo discloses connector of the bit 2 to the drive shaft 4 using through-hole bolt and nut connection through holes 28a and 28b. Banjo discloses a hole through the center support 15 for securing cutting tip 22 in Figure 4 and a bolt in that location in Figure 2. Since the center support includes a center aperture shown in Figure 5 for holding the cutting tip 22, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the hole that extends through two side walls of the center support to allow for the bolt to pass through the shown hole, the cutting tip, and then the other sidewall of the center support, in a fashion similar to the other bolted connections. The proposed hole through the other sidewall would meet the claim limitation of a second secondary alignment aperture with the motivation to secure the cutting tip 22 with a high torque connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 10-20, pending resolution of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, a search of the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the device as claimed in the context of the entire scope of the claims. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the instant invention is neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art because the device is not taught nor suggested as set forth in the entire context of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of auger devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723