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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "18" and "18’’" have both been used to designate first bore; reference characters “31’” and “39” have both been used to designate fastener; characters “31” and “31’” are both shown pointing to the same element in figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first axis” as set forth in claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 18 and “an insert” as set forth in claims 13 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “coupled to a material processing” should be –coupled to a material processing machine--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “engaged with body” should read –engaged with the body--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein tip defines” should read –wherein the tip defines--. Appropriate correction is required
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 8, 9, 11 and 12 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 claims 8 and 9, the claims recite multiple different types of axes, including a first axis, where the fastening member biases the first mounting element along the first axis as recited in claim 1, and a central axis, coincident with the first axis as recited in claim 8. It is unclear what the first axis and coincident axis are in relation to the body and what direction they are. Claim 9 recites that the fastening member is arranged in a through-hole extending through the body between the mounting element recess and the second lateral side, and therefore, the first axis would not be along a central axis as recited in claim 8, upon which claim 9 depends.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second lateral side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steele, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5,061,082).
Regarding claim 1, Steele, Jr. discloses an impeller assembly (figure 1), comprising:
a body (shaft 12) adapted to be operatively coupled to a material processing machine (figure 1, mixing apparatus 10);
a tip removably attached to the body (blades 40); and
a fastening assembly (figure 2), including:
a first mounting element arranged within one of the body or the tip and movable along a first axis (shank 30);
a second mounting element fixed to the other one of the body or the tip (flange 43, bore hole 44); and
a fastening member adapted to bias the first mounting element along the first axis (bolt 33 or bolt 51; column 3, lines 37-60; column 4, lines 49-58) between:
a first position in which the second mounting element is slidably engageable with the first mounting element (column 4, lines 33-37); and
a second position wherein the tip is fixedly secured to the body (figure 2, blade (tip 40) secured to body (shaft 12) by fastening member (bolt 33 and/or bolt 51) after blade 40 is slid on shank 30; column 4, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 2, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the first mounting element and the second mounting element comprise one of a respective at least one protrusion and at least one recess, the at least one recess of the first mounting element or the second mounting element slidably receiving the at least one protrusion of the first mounting element or the second mounting element along a sliding direction (figures 2 and 4-6, flat portion 36, flange 43 and bore hole 44; column 4, lines 16-42).
Regarding claim 5, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the body further defines a mechanical stop limiting motion of the second mounting element relative to the first mounting element in the sliding direction (figures 2 and 6, shoulder 36a; column 4, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 7, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the body and the tip define: a first lateral side including a leading edge adapted to impact a material to be mixed (leading edge 41); and a second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (trailing edge 42).
Regarding claim 8, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the first mounting element is slidably arranged within a mounting element recess formed into an end of the body (figure 2, mounting hole 16a; column 3, lines 30-31); and the fastening member is threadably engaged with the first mounting element and includes a central axis coincident with the first axis (figure 2, bolt 33; column 3, lines 37-44).
Regarding claim 9, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the fastening member is arranged in a through-hole extending through the body between the mounting element recess and the second lateral side, the through-hole opening on the second lateral side (figure 2, horizontal portion of shank 30, with end 31 and bolt 33 is considered a fastening member and is arranged in through hole 16a extending through body 16 between mounting recess 16a and second lateral side 41).
Regarding claim 13, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the tip further includes a tip body (blade 40) and an insert defining the second mounting element and fixed at least partially within the tip body (figures 2, 4 and 5, flange 43).
Regarding claim 17, Steele, Jr. discloses an impeller (figure 1), comprising:
a body (shaft 12) adapted to be operatively coupled to a material processing machine (figure 1, mixing apparatus 10);
a tip removably attached to the body (blades 40); and
a fastening assembly (figure 2, shank 30, bolt 33, flange 43, bore 44, bolt 51), including:
a first mounting element moveably arranged within one of the body or the tip (shank 30);
a second mounting element fixed to the other one of the body or the tip (flange 43, bore hole 44); the fastening assembly adapted to selectively bias the first mounting element (bolt 33 or bolt 51; column 3, lines 37-60; column 4, lines 49-58) between a first position in which the second mounting element is slidably engageable with the first mounting element (column 4, lines 33-37)and a second position wherein the tip is fixedly secured to the body (figure 2, blade (tip 40) secured to body (shaft 12) by fastening member (bolt 33 and/or bolt 51) after blade 40 is slid on shank 30; column 4, lines 49-58).
Regarding claim 20, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the body and the tip define:
a first lateral side including a leading edge adapted to impact a material being processed (leading edge 41); and
a second lateral side opposite the first lateral side (trailing edge 42), wherein a fastening member of the fastening assembly is accessible through the second lateral side and is operative to bias the first mounting element between the first position and the second position (figure 2, bolt 51; column 4, lines 49-58).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele, Jr. in view of Gerl et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0410095) and Adam (U.S. Patent No. 3,503,564).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Steele, Jr. does not explicitly disclose the shape of the protrusion and recess to be t-shaped and have a pair of T-shaped protrusions and pair of T-shaped recesses. Steele, Jr. teaches that it is well recognized in the art that the complimentary shapes of the shank and the bore hole may take other various shapes (column 4, lines 37-39); and it is well known in the art that protrusion and recess can have a variety of shapes of configurations, including T-shaped and multiple T-shaped pairs (as evidenced by Gerl et al. figure 3 and Adam figures 2 and 3, #22). The change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the protrusion and recess shape of the mounting elements of Steele, Jr. to include a variety of shapes, as taught by Gerl et al. and Adam. An ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do the foregoing in order to provide a simple and operable arrangement for engaging the shank with the blade (Steele, Jr. column 4, lines 40-42).
Claim(s) 6, 10-12, 14-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele, Jr.
Regarding claims 6, 16 and 18, Steele, Jr. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the sliding direction is oriented 30 degrees to the first axis rather than perpendicular and does not explicitly disclose wherein the first axis extends obliquely relative to an axis of elongation of the body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the angle of the sliding direction and first axis, as the degree of mixing and the security of attachment are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the angle of attachments (Steele, Jr. columns 3, lines 25-30; column 1-42). As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed angle cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the angle of the first axis and the angle of sliding direction with respect to the first axis in the apparatus of Steele, Jr. to obtain the desired balance between the mixing efficiency and security of the blade (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimension or configuration of a component.
Regarding claim 10, Steele, Jr. as modified further discloses wherein the fastening assembly further comprises a connecting element having a first end attached to the first mounting element, a central axis of the connecting element aligned with the first axis (figure 2, tapered surface 31a);
the first mounting element is slidably arranged within a mounting element recess formed into an end of the body (figure 2, mounting hole 16a); and
the fastening member is threadably engaged with body and adapted to selectively translate the connecting element along the first axis for biasing the first mounting element between the first position and the second position (figure 2, bolt 33 and/or bolt 51; column 3, lines 30-44; column 4, lines 43-58).
Regarding claim 11, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the fastening member is arranged within a first bore extending into the body from the second lateral side (figure 2, bolt 33 in hole 16a at right end open area);
the connecting element is arranged in a second bore extending from the mounting element recess into the body along the first axis (tapered surface 31 in second bore defined by collar 32); and
the first bore is in communication with the second bore such that the fastening member is selectively engageable with the connecting element (figure 2, #31 and 33; column 3, lines 37-44).
Regarding claim 12, Steele, Jr. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While the first bore and second bore of Steele, Jr. are not oriented obliquely, Steele, Jr. teaches another fastening member (bolt 51) in another hole (hole 35) that is oriented obliquely to the first hole (see figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of filing to modify the angle of the first and second bore to provide a secure connections with optimal angle with respect to the material to be mixed (column 3, lines 20-60), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimension or configuration of a component.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Steele, Jr. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose wherein the tip body is formed from a first material, and the insert of the tip is formed of a second material, distinct from the first material and wherein the tip body includes at least an outer carbide surface. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the material of the insert to be a second material, distinct form the first material of the tip body, and modify the material of tip body to include at least an outer carbide surface in order to obtain a strong fastening of the insert and in order to provide a strong protective material of the tip body since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Steele, Jr. discloses wherein the tip defines a hollow interior cavity (bore hole 44); however is silent as to the volume percentage. Absent unexpected result, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to optimize the percentage to obtain the desired balance between strength of the tip and secure connection, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223), and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the dimension or configuration of a component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights