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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3,768,737 to Tobias.
Regarding claim 1: Tobias teaches a spreading system for an aerial vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 2-5: a mobile spreader used to broadcast materials from a moving vehicle; the spreading system of Tobias is capable of use with an aerial vehicle), comprising:
a material conveying mechanism (shown in fig. 3), comprising:
at least one material inlet (fig. 6: slot openings ‘X’) to dock with a material box (bed ‘B’),
at least one material outlet (figs. 1, 3: at the back end 10a of channel 10),
at least one screw transmitter (auger 44) to transfer a material, and at least one driving device (figs. 1-2: including motor 20) in transmission connection with the at least one screw transmitter (c. 2, ℓ. 56-61: hydraulic motor 20 drives shaft 16 to rotate; c. 3, ℓ. 19-23: the auger is attached to the shaft 16 and rotates whenever the shaft rotates),
wherein the at least one driving device comprises a motor (hydraulic motor 20) and drives the at least one screw transmitter to rotate (c. 2, ℓ. motor 20 drives rotation of shaft 16; c. 3, ℓ. 19-27: lead screw-type conveyor or augur 44 “is attached to the shaft 16 and rotates whenever the shaft rotates”), so as to transfer the material from the at least one material inlet to the at least one material outlet (c. 3, ℓ. 19-27: “rotation of the shaft 16 when viewed from the rear of the truck is clockwise so as to move the granular material between the convolutions of the auger toward the rear of the truck and discharge it into the spinner disc 40”); and
at least one material spreader (shown in fig. 4), to spread the material from the at least one material outlet (c. 1, ℓ. 31-35, c. 3, ℓ. 11-19), comprising:
a spinning disc (spinner disc 40), wherein an angle between a rotation plane of the spinning disc and a yaw axis of the aerial vehicle is greater than or equal to 0° and less than 90° (figs. 1, 3: as mounted on the vehicle shown, the rotation plane of spinner plate 40 is parallel to the yaw axis of the vehicle, providing an angle equal to 0°), and
when the spinning disc rotates, the material in the spinning disc is thrown out substantially tangentially along a periphery of the spinning disc (c. 3, ℓ. 11-19: due to the radially extended pieces of angle iron 42, the disc slings the granular material as shown by the arrows A in fig. 5, see annotations in Item A below; while Tobias uses the language “radially outwardly” in the passage, “slinging the granular material radially outwardly therefrom, for instance, as shown by the arrows A in FIG. 5”, reference to figure 5 shows that arrows A depict a tangential trajectory, which one having ordinary skill in the art would expect due to the presence of angle irons 42).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Item A: detail from figure 5 of US 3,768,737 to Tobias, with annotations
Regarding claim 2: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one screw transmitter comprises at least one of a worm or a spiral brush (figs. 1, 3, 5: a worm); or
the at least one screw transmitter comprises at least two coaxially arranged screw transmitters (this limitation is recited in the alternative).
Regarding claim 10: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the transmission connection between the at least one driving device and the at least one screw transmitter comprises a direct transmission, or an indirect transmission (figs. 1-3, c. 2, ℓ. 57-61: direct transmission; it is however noted that every transmission is either direct or indirect).
Regarding claim 11: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one material spreader comprises at least one of a disc spreader(figs. 1-3: spinner plate 40 is a disc spreader).
Regarding claim 12: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the rotation plane of the spinning disc is substantially parallel to the yaw axis of the aerial vehicle (figs. 1, 3: as mounted on the vehicle shown, the rotation plane of spinner plate 40 is parallel to the yaw axis of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one material outlet is located below or obliquely below an end of the at least one screw transmitter (as shown in figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1, wherein the material conveying mechanism is arranged between the material box and the at least one material spreader (see figs. 1-3).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3-9, 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,768,737 to Tobias in view of US 3,183,006 to den Herder.
Regarding claim 3: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1.
Tobias does not specifically disclose a second material outlet, a second material inlet, and a second screw mechanism.
den Herder teaches a material spreading system for use with a vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 10-15), comprising:
a first material outlet and a second material outlet (discharge openings 7) to dock with the at least one material spreader ((c. 1, ℓ. 24-29; c. 1, ℓ. 63-68: discharge openings of the hopper opens to the casing 8 of the spinning blades 6),
a first screw transmitter and a second screw transmitter (fig. 2: left and right helical ribs 4),
a first material inlet and a second material inlet (c. 1, ℓ. 52-54: each semi-circular portion of bottom 2, which provides access from the rest of the hopper 1 to the helical ribs 4),
the first and second screw mechanisms transfer the material from the first and second material inlets to the respective first and second material outlets during operation (c. 1, ℓ. 52-62; see figs. 1-2: helical ribs 4 transfer material through discharge openings to the spinning blades 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teachings of den Herder to the spreading system of Tobias by providing a second material inlet, second material outlet and a second screw mechanism, for the purpose of spreading the material on a wider track (den Herder c. 2, ℓ. 3-9), or for the purpose of duplication for redundancy, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 4: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 3, wherein, during operation,
the first screw transmitters transfers the material in a first direction, and the second screw transmitter transfers the material in a second direction opposite to the first direction (c. 2, ℓ. 3-9: “the blades 6 provided at the rear wall of the hopper throw the material out of the casing to the left and the blades 6 provided at the front wall of the hopper throw the material to the right”).
Regarding claim 5: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 4, wherein a rotation direction of the first screw transmitter(as modified; den Herder c. 1, ℓ. 55-58: the shafts rotate in opposite directions).
Regarding claim 6: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 3, wherein during operation,
the first screw transmitter transfers the material in a first direction, and the second screw transmitter transfers the material in the first direction (as modified; den Herder c. 1, ℓ. 52–c. 2, ℓ. 14, figs. 1-2: both transfer material toward the back, in the direction opposite the direction of arrow ‘a’ in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 6. Tobias does not specifically disclose a second screw mechanism and den Herder does not specifically disclose that the first and second screw mechanisms may rotate in the same direction, though den Herder does disclose that it might be desired to spread material laterally to one side only (den Herder c. 2, ℓ. 9-14).
However, in the process of applying the teachings of den Herder to the spreading system of Tobias, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the second screw mechanism as rotating in the same direction as the first screw mechanism, such as by directly duplicating the screw mechanism of Tobias, due to the simplicity of construction and to reduce the weight and complexity of a geared transmission, reducing maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 8: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 3, wherein when the spreading system is connected to a frame of the aerial vehicle, the first material outlet and the second material outlet are arranged in a direction parallel to a roll axis of the aerial vehicle (Tobias figs. 1 and 3: the material outlet is located outside of the bed ‘B’, further aft along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle than the material outlet; the longitudinal axis is the roll axis, and if used with an aerial vehicle in the same orientation as shown in Tobias, the inlet and outlet would be arranged in a direction parallel to the roll axis).
Regarding claim 9: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 3, wherein when the spreading system is connected to a frame of the aerial vehicle, the first material outlet and the second material outlet are arranged in a direction parallel to a pitch axis of the aerial vehicle (den Herder figs. 1-2: the outlets are arranged adjacent one another, spaced apart in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; the lateral horizontal axis is the pitch axis, and if used with an aerial vehicle in the same orientation as shown in Tobias and den Herder, the first and second outlets would be arranged in a direction parallel to the pitch axis | additionally, as the spreading system is not claimed to be connected to the aerial vehicle, it is considered that the spreading system of Tobias, as modified by den Herder, is capable of use in a manner such that the two material outlets are arranged in a direction parallel to a pitch axis).
Regarding claim 14: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1. Tobias does not specifically teach that the at least one material spreading mechanism includes at least two material spreading mechanisms.
den Herder teaches a material spreading system for use with a vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 10-15), comprising:
at least two material spreading mechanisms (figs. 1-2: blades 6 within housings 8), and
when the spreading system is connected to a frame of the aerial vehicle, the at least two material spreading mechanisms are arranged side by side or staggered in a direction parallel to a roll axis of the aerial vehicle (figs. 1-2: the spinning blades 6 are shown to be located side by side, the first of the two recited options).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teachings of den Herder to the spreading system of Tobias by providing a second material inlet, second material outlet and a second screw mechanism, for the purpose of spreading the material on a wider track (den Herder c. 2, ℓ. 3-9), or for the purpose of duplication for redundancy, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 15: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 14, wherein the at least two material spreaders each comprises a spinning disc (Tobias teaches a spinning disc 40; as modified by den Herder, each material spreading mechanism would include a spinning disc 40),
when the spreading system is connected to the frame of the aerial vehicle, the at least two material spreaders are arranged in a direction parallel to a roll axis of the aerial vehicle (Tobias fig. 1 and den Herder fig. 2: the material spreading mechanisms are arranged with rotational axes parallel to the roll axis),
angles between rotation planes of at least two spinning discs and a yaw axis of the aerial vehicle are substantially equal (both are 0°).
Regarding claim 16: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1.
Tobias does not specifically disclose at least two material spreaders arranged side by side or staggered in a direction parallel to a pitch axis of the aerial vehicle.
den Herder teaches a material spreading system for use with a vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 10-15), comprising:
at least two material spreaders (shown in figs. 1-2) arranged side by side or staggered in a direction parallel to a pitch axis of the aerial vehicle (fig. 2: the spreaders are side by side in a lateral direction; arrow ‘a’ indicates the direction of travel leaving the pitch axis as a lateral axis perpendicular to the arrow ‘a’).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teachings of den Herder to the spreading system of Tobias by at least two material spreaders, for the purpose of spreading the material on a wider track (den Herder c. 2, ℓ. 3-9), or for the purpose of duplication for redundancy, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 17: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 16, wherein the at least two material spreaders each comprises a spinning disc (Tobias teaches a spinning disc 40; as modified by den Herder, each material spreading mechanism would include a spinning disc 40),
when the spreading system is connected to the frame of the aerial vehicle, the at least two material spreaders are arranged in a direction parallel to a pitch axis of the aerial vehicle (den Herder figs. 1-2: the two spinning blades 6 are located adjacent one another, spaced apart in a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; the lateral horizontal axis is the pitch axis, and if used with an aerial vehicle in the same orientation as shown in Tobias and den Herder, the first and second outlets would be arranged in a direction parallel to the pitch axis | additionally, as the spreading system is not claimed to be connected to the aerial vehicle, it is considered that the spreading system of Tobias, as modified by den Herder, is capable of use in a manner such that the two material spreading mechanisms are arranged adjacent one another in a direction parallel to a pitch axis),
angles between rotation planes of at least two spinning discs and a yaw axis of the aerial vehicle are substantially equal (both are 0°).
Regarding claim 19: Tobias teaches a spreading system for an aerial vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 2-5: a mobile spreader used to broadcast materials from a moving vehicle; the spreading system of Tobias is capable of use with an aerial vehicle), comprising:
a material conveying mechanism (shown in fig. 3), comprising:
at least one material inlet (fig. 6: slot openings ‘X’) to dock with a material box (bed ‘B’),
at least one material outlet (figs. 1, 3: at the back end 10a of channel 10),
at least one screw transmitter (auger 44) to transfer a material, and
at least one driving device (figs. 1-2: including motor 20) in transmission connection with the at least one screw transmitter (c. 2, ℓ. 56-61: hydraulic motor 20 drives shaft 16 to rotate; c. 3, ℓ. 19-23: the auger is attached to the shaft 16 and rotates whenever the shaft rotates),
wherein the at least one driving device comprises a motor (hydraulic motor 20) to drive the at least one screw transmitter to rotate (c. 2, ℓ. motor 20 drives rotation of shaft 16; c. 3, ℓ. 19-27: lead screw-type conveyor or augur 44 “is attached to the shaft 16 and rotates whenever the shaft rotates”),
to transfer the material from the at least one material inlet to the at least one material outlet (c. 3, ℓ. 19-27: “rotation of the shaft 16 when viewed from the rear of the truck is clockwise so as to move the granular material between the convolutions of the auger toward the rear of the truck and discharge it into the spinner disc 40”); and
at least one material spreader (shown in fig. 4), to spread the material from the at least one material outlet (c. 1, ℓ. 31-35, c. 3, ℓ. 11-19), comprising:
a spinning disc (spinner disc 40), wherein when the spinning disc rotates, the material in the spinning disc is thrown out substantially tangentially along a periphery of the spinning disc (c. 3, ℓ. 11-19: due to the radially extended pieces of angle iron 42, the disc slings the granular material as shown by the arrows A in fig. 5, see annotations in Item A above, regarding claim 1; while Tobias uses the language “radially outwardly” in the passage, “slinging the granular material radially outwardly therefrom, for instance, as shown by the arrows A in FIG. 5”, reference to figure 5 shows that arrows A depict a tangential trajectory, which one having ordinary skill in the art would expect due to the presence of angle irons 42).
Tobias does not specifically teach that the at least one screw mechanism includes a first screw mechanism and a second screw mechanism, the first and second screw mechanisms arranged non-coaxially and driven by the driving device.
den Herder teaches a material spreading system for use with a vehicle (c. 1, ℓ. 10-15), comprising at least one screw mechanism which includes a first screw mechanism and a second screw mechanism (fig. 2: left and right helical ribs 4), and the first screw mechanism and the second screw mechanism are arranged non-coaxially (as shown in figs. 1-2) and driven by the same driving device (c. 1, ℓ. 55-61: one shaft is coupled to a driving shaft and the two shafts are in transmission through toothed wheels 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the spreading system of Tobias such that the at least one screw mechanism includes a first screw mechanism and a second screw mechanism, the first and second screw mechanisms arranged non-coaxially and driven by the same driving device simultaneously, as taught by den Herder, for the purpose of spreading the material on a wider track (den Herder c. 2, ℓ. 3-9).
Regarding claim 20: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 19, wherein when the at least one material spreader is connected to a frame of the aerial vehicle, an angle between a rotation plane of the spinning disc and a yaw axis of the aerial vehicle are greater than or equal to 0° and less than 90° (Tobias figs. 1, 3: as mounted on the vehicle shown, the rotation plane of spinner plate 40 is parallel to the yaw axis of the vehicle, which is an angle of equal to 0°; additionally, since the spreading system is not claimed to be connected to the aerial vehicle, it is considered that the spreading system of Tobias is capable of use in a manner such that an angle between a rotation plane of the spinning disc and a yaw axis of an aerial vehicle is greater or equal to 0° and less than 90°).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,768,737 to Tobias in view of CN 206866007 U to Huang et al. (citations to the text are to the appended machine translation document)
Regarding claim 4: Tobias teaches the spreading system according to claim 1.
Tobias does not specifically disclose a second material outlet, a second material inlet, and a second screw mechanism.
Huang teaches a material spreading system for use with a vehicle (¶ 0002), comprising:
a first material outlet and a second material outlet (¶ 0017: outlets of left and right wind deflectors 12, 16),
a first screw transmitter and a second screw transmitter (¶ 0017, fig. 1: left and right conveying rods 2, 11),
a first material inlet and a second material inlet (¶ 0017: left and right hoppers 3, 9, or the inlet to the conveying rods from the hoopers),
the first and second screw mechanisms transfer the material from the first and second material inlets to the respective first and second material outlets during operation (¶ 0017),
wherein, during operation, the first screw transmitters transfers the material in a first direction, and the second screw transmitter transfers the material in a second direction opposite to the first direction (¶ 0005, 0017-0018).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have applied the teachings of Huang to the spreading system of Tobias by providing a second material inlet, second material outlet and a second screw mechanism, so as to evenly discharge the material (¶ 0005), or for the purpose of duplication for redundancy, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5: Tobias, as modified, provides the spreading system according to claim 4.
Tobias does not specifically disclose a second screw mechanism and Huang does not specifically disclose that the first and second screw mechanisms may rotate in opposite directions.
However, in the process of applying the teachings of Huang to the spreading system of Tobias, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the second screw mechanism as rotating in the opposite direction as the first screw mechanism, for the purpose of balancing the torque generated by the screw mechanisms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued (Remarks, pages 11-12) Tobias fails to teach the limitation, “when the spinning disc rotates, the material in the spinning disc is thrown out substantially tangentially along a periphery of the spinning disc”, citing col. 3, lines 11-18 of Tobias which describe slinging the material “radially outwardly”.
However, the sentence from the quotation given ends with, “for instance, as shown by the arrows A in FIG. 5.” Reference to figure 5 shows that the arrows A do not depict a direction parallel to a radius of the disc, but instead show motion which is substantially tangential.
The angle irons 42 on the disc are rotating with the disc and exert a force on the material in the direction of rotation. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect the momentum from that rotation to determine the motion of the material once it leaves the disc. At the outward end of the angle iron, the material will no longer rotate with the disc but will have a velocity in the direction of rotation at the point where it leaves the disc, which is a velocity vector tangent to the disc when it leaves the disc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647