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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior of Tang (US20090057451A1) does not disclose "disk type ratchet wheels being respectively disposed on driving shafts of the grinding assemblies".
In response to this argument, the claims rejected as filed and claim 1 is required “disk type ratchet wheels being respectively disposed on driving shafts of the grinding assemblies” and fig.12 showing all the gears elements including elements (123) and (124) are disposed on driving shaft (11a) and (11b); also claim 8 showing the elements (123) and (124) are disposed on the shaft (11a) and (11b)) via elements (20, 22) and (12, 13)).
Accordingly, this argument not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior of Tang (US20090057451A1) does not disclose "the two disk type ratchet wheels facing opposite directions ".
In response to this argument, the claims rejected as filed and claim 1 is required “the two disk type ratchet wheels facing opposite directions” and figs.8, 10 and 12 showing the element (123) is facing one side and the element (24) is facing a second side opposite to the first side; therefore, the prior of Tang disclose "the two disk type ratchet wheels (123) and (124) facing opposite directions ".
Accordingly, this argument not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang (US20090057451A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an electric grinder (abstract, paragraphs 0038-0041 and fig.12), comprising:
a housing (fig.12: (102)), internally provided with two independent material storage cavities (fig.12: (4) and (5)), and each of the material storage cavities being provided with a feeding port and a discharging port (fig.12: the inlet and outlet of each of elements (4) and (5)); two grinding assemblies (fig.12: (7a) and (7b)), respectively and correspondingly disposed at the discharging ports (paragraph 0025-0026 and fig.12), and
disk type ratchet wheels (fig.8: (123) and (124)) being respectively disposed on driving shafts (figs.8 and 12: (11a) and (11b)) of the grinding assemblies, and the two disk type ratchet wheels facing opposite directions (figs.8, 10 and 12, paragraphs 0030 and 0035); and a driving device, comprising a driving unit (fig.8: (19)) and a transmission mechanism (fig.8 (25)),
an output end of the driving unit transmitting torque to the driving shafts of the grinding assemblies through the transmission mechanism (paragraph 0025-0030), and the driving unit respectively and singly driving one of the grinding assemblies to singly work through the transmission mechanism when positively rotating or reversely rotating (paragraphs 0032-0033 and fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Tang discloses wherein the transmission mechanism comprises a driving gear (fig.8: (25)) connected with an output shaft (fig.5: (19)) of the driving unit and two driven ratchet-gear wheels (fig.8: (12) and (13)) disposed in a manner of being coaxial with the driving shafts (fig.8: (11a) and (11b)), outer teeth of the two driven ratchet-gear wheels are respectively engaged with the driving gear (fig.5),
an axial end of each of the driven ratchet-gear wheels (fig.8: (12) and (13)) is engaged with the corresponding disk type ratchet wheel (fig.8: (123) and (124)),
the driving unit drives the driving gear to positively rotate or reversely rotate, and one of the grinding assemblies is driven to singly work sequentially through power transmission of the driven ratchet-gear wheels and the disk type ratchet wheels (paragraphs 0032-0033 and fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Tang discloses wherein a decelerating unit is disposed between the output end of the driving unit and the driving gear (fig.12: (72) and paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 6, Tang discloses an installing frame (fig.12: (117)), wherein the driving unit and the transmission mechanism are installed on the installing frame.
Regarding claim 7, Tang discloses further comprising a protection cover (fig.12: (114)), wherein the protection cover is combined with the installing frame to form a sealed space for installing the transmission mechanism.
Regarding claim 9, Tang discloses wherein each of the grinding assemblies comprises a female grinding core (fig.12: (10)) and a male grinding core (fig.12: (9)), the female grinding core is fixedly installed on the housing, and the male grinding core is disposed on the driving shaft (fig.12).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US20090057451A1) in view of Witsken (US5707016A).
Regarding claim 4, Tang does not disclose wherein each of the driving shafts is provided with a polished shaft portion, and each of the driven ratchet-gear wheels is installed on the corresponding polished shaft portion in an axially movable manner.
However, having a polished shaft portion is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering practice in order to have an extremely smooth, accurate, and uniform surface for reduced friction, wear, and enhanced performance in high-speed;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein each of the driving shafts is provided with a polished shaft portion, and each of the driven ratchet-gear wheels is installed on the corresponding polished shaft portion in an axially movable manner, practice in order to have an extremely smooth, accurate, and uniform surface for reduced friction, wear, and enhanced performance in high-speed.
Regarding claim 5, Tang does not disclose wherein the driven ratchet-gear wheels are elastically installed on each of the driving shafts, and the driven ratchet-gear wheels have a motion tendency of keeping engagement with the corresponding disk type ratchet wheel.
However, having elastic coupling connects a gear to a shaft is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering practice in order to prevent absorbing shocks, vibrations, and compensating for shaft misalignment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the driven ratchet-gear wheels are elastically installed on each of the driving shafts, and the driven ratchet-gear wheels have a motion tendency of keeping engagement with the corresponding disk type ratchet in order to prevent absorbing shocks, vibrations, and compensating for shaft misalignment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US20090057451A1) in view of Witsken (US5707016A).
Regarding claim 8, Tang discloses wherein a shaft support frame and two positioning rings (see fig.12 below) are fixedly installed in the housing, the driving shafts (fig.8: (11a) and (11b)) respectively pass through the shaft support frame and the positioning rings,
Tang does not disclose the positioning rings are able to rotate relative to the shaft support frame.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Witsken teaches a grinder (abstract), comprising:
a positioning ring (fig.5: (194)) is able to rotate relative to a shaft support frame (fig.5: (158)) (col.8 lines 28-30).
Both of the prior arts of Tang and Witsken are related to a grinded;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the driving shafts of the apparatus of Tang to have the positioning rings to be able to rotate relative to the shaft support frame as taught by Witsken, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having the positioning rings are able to rotate relative to the shaft support frame.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US20090057451A1) in view of Jana (US10413127B1).
Regarding claim 10, Tang does not disclose wherein each of the grinding assemblies further comprises an adjusting knob connected with the corresponding driving shaft through screw threads, and the adjusting knob is configured to adjust an axial position of the male grinding core on the corresponding driving shaft.
Jana discloses a grinder (abstract), comprising:
an adjusting knob (fig.3: (40)) connected with a driving shaft (fig.3: (26)) through screw threads (fig.3: (32)), and the adjusting knob is configured to adjust an axial position of a male grinding core on the driving shaft (col..3 lines 32-42).
Both of the prior arts of Tang and Jana are related to a grinded;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the grinding assemblies of the apparatus of Tang to have an adjusting knob connected with a driving shaft through screw threads, and the adjusting knob is configured to adjust an axial position of a male grinding core on the driving shaft as taught by Jana, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein each of the grinding assemblies further comprises an adjusting knob connected with the corresponding driving shaft through screw threads, and the adjusting knob is configured to adjust an axial position of the male grinding core on the corresponding driving shaft.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725