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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-13 are pending and claims 1 and 8 are amended.
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: a removability mechanism in claims 1 and 11, and a locking mechanism in claim 6.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kime (U.S. 6,446,879) in view of Bostrom (U.S. 6,328,798).
With respect to claim 1, Kime discloses a hopper for a spreader system for applying salt to a roadway surface, comprising:
a hopper body (body of 276) comprising an enclosure for receiving and retaining the salt (abstract), wherein the hopper body further comprises a bottom panel (bottom panel of 140, being the bottom panel noted being the bottom panel of the auger and hopper) having an exterior surface (having 16 beneath it) and an interior surface (where the auger 76 is located);
at least one auger (76) for displacing the salt for application to the roadway (abstract), wherein the at least one auger is mounted in a bottom portion within the hopper body (as shown in figure 6, the auger in a bottom portion of 276);
a brine nozzle (338) for dispensing a brine solution into the hopper (being displaced in the bottom area of the hopper where the augers are located) and which has an exterior surface; but fails to disclose a removability mechanism for mounting the brine nozzle into the bottom panel so that the brine nozzle extends into the hopper body at a position adjoining the at least one auger, wherein the removability mechanism is attached to the exterior surface of the bottom panel.
Bostrom, figure 4, discloses a threading and coupling structure for inserting a nozzle into a space to apply fluid to an auger, disclosing elements 72, 82, 80, 88, 84, 94 which allow for a nozzle to be inserted into a housing of an auger. Disclosing, column 10 line 50 to column 11 line 30, that such insertion allows for a desired application of an aqueous solution to the auger and allows for less down time, repair, and cleaning, while allows allowing the spray head to be securing mounted to the wall via the wall mounting adapter as desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the nozzle mounting structure of Bostrom into the system of Kime, allowing for the spread head to be securely mounted to the wall (being the bottom wall of Kime) in its desired position as well as allowing for less down time, repair, and cleaning with its placement. Such a combination would then be a nozzle mounted on the bottom panel of Kime (as is shown the fluid path going through the bottom wall in figure 6) and applying the brine from the nozzle to the auger adjoining the position of the auger (as is shown in figure 6), where the exterior surface of the bottom panel then has the mounting adapter 72 of Bostrom affixed thereon.
With respect to claim 2, Kime as modified discloses the removability mechanism further comprises:
a threaded port (threaded port 72 of Bostrom) located on the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel (being the placement in Kime, where the nozzle comes up from the bottom into the hopper); said port having a circular flange (as shown in figure 4 of Bostrom) extending perpendicularly outward from the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel (as such flange would then be perpendicular with the bottom panel, as it is perpendicular with a panel as shown in Bostrom); wherein the circular flange has interior and exterior surfaces and threads along the length of the flange interior surface; (as shown in figure 4, where the length of the interior surface is that which has the threads the nozzle is then placed within) and threads located on the brine nozzle exterior surface (as shown in figure 4, where the nozzle has exterior threads), which correspond to the threads along the length of the flange interior surface (as shown in figure 4 of Bostrom), such that the brine nozzle is capable of being securely screwed and tightened into the port (as shown in figure 4).
With respect to claim 7, Kime as modified discloses the removability mechanism further comprises: an adapter having a threaded adapter hole (Bostrom: being the adapter of 72 having a threaded hole), a threaded adapter surface (being the surface of the threads), a topside end (72s top side), and an underside end (underside of 72); wherein the threaded adapter hole and threaded adapter surface are disposed on the topside end (being the topside end where the threads are located); and wherein the brine nozzle is capable of being securely screwed and tightened into the threaded adapter hole (as shown in figure 4, here the nozzle is tightened into the threaded adapter hole where the threads of the nozzle correspond with that of the adapter).
With respect to claim 8, Kime as modified in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 discloses “a hopper for a spreader system for applying salt to a roadway surface, comprising: a hopper body comprising an enclosure for receiving and retaining the salt, wherein the hopper body further comprises a bottom panel having an exterior surface and an interior surface; at least one auger for displacing the salt for application to the roadway, wherein the at least one auger is mounted in a bottom portion within the hopper body; a brine nozzle for dispensing a brine solution into the hopper and which has an exterior surface; and a removability mechanism for mounting the brine nozzle into the bottom panel so that the brine nozzle extends into the hopper body at a position adjoining the at least one auger, wherein the removability mechanism is attached to the exterior surface of the bottom panel, and which removability mechanism comprises: a threaded port located on the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel; said port having a circular flange extending perpendicularly outward from the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel; wherein the circular flange has interior and exterior surfaces and threads along the length of the flange interior surface; threads located on the brine nozzle exterior surface, which correspond to the threads along the length of the flange interior surface, such that the brine nozzle is capable of being securely screwed and tightened into the port;”
a shelf along the interior surface of the circular flange (shelf disclosed by Bostrom along the interior surface of the flange); and
said shelf located at the point where the removability mechanism connects to the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel (as the shelf is located at a point where 72 then connects with the wall that it then threads to).
Claim(s) 6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kime and Bostrom as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Franz (U.S. 4,072,772).
With respect to claim 6, Kime as modified discloses the removability mechanism further comprises: a sealed port located on the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel (as the port of Bostrom is understood being sealed by the threading); said port having a circular collet having metal teeth (the teeth being that of the threading); a locking mechanism within the port (being the engagement of the two threads together coupled with the end wall which then prevents more threaded movement); and wherein the brine nozzle can be pressed into the sealed port (as it gets pressed and rotated via the threads); but fails to disclose the port also having one or more O-rings.
Franz, column 17 row 60 through column 18 row 5, discloses using rubber washers (understood as being O-rings) to form a hermetic seal with the nozzle and the conduit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rubber washer (O-ring) of Franz into the system of Bostrom, allowing for a hermetic seal between the nozzle and the conduit to which it is affixed .
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Kime as modified discloses the removability mechanism but fails to disclose a teflon tape sealant for coating the threads located on the brine nozzle exterior surface or a rubber ring that rests flush with the shelf along the interior surface of the circular flange, in a direction outwardly extending from exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel.
Franz, column 17 row 60 through column 18 row 5, discloses using rubber washers (understood as being O-rings) to form a hermetic seal with the nozzle and the conduit. Disclosing the rubber washer being placement flush with a shelf on an interior surface of a flange (figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rubber washer (O-ring) of Franz into the system of Bostrom, allowing for a hermetic seal between the nozzle and the conduit to which it is affixed. Such placement is understood being placed within a circular flange then in Kime to allow for the two elements to seal.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kime in view of Bostrom and Debro (U.S. 11,530,138).
With respect to claim 11, Kime discloses a method for servicing a spreader system hopper for applying salt to a roadway surface (abstract), comprising: an underside of the hopper (see figure 6, bottom where 16 is located), a brine nozzle (338), a body bottom panel (beneath 338 noted with fluid coming from line 336 through the bottom panel), but fails to disclose:
accessing a removability mechanism configured onto an underside of the hopper;
disengaging the removability mechanism from the underside of the hopper; removing the brine nozzle from a port on the hopper body bottom panel;
cleaning the brine nozzle;
replacing the brine nozzle into the port on the hopper body bottom surface; and reengaging the mechanism onto the underside of the hopper.
Bostrom, figure 4, discloses a threading and coupling structure for inserting a nozzle into a space to apply fluid to an auger, disclosing elements 72, 82, 80, 88, 84, 94 which allow for a nozzle to be inserted into a housing of an auger. Disclosing, column 10 line 50 to column 11 line 30, that such insertion allows for a desired application of an aqueous solution to the auger and allows for less down time, repair, and cleaning, while allows allowing the spray head to be securing mounted to the wall via the wall mounting adapter as desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the nozzle mounting structure of Bostrom into the system of Kime, allowing for the spread head to be securely mounted to the wall (being the bottom wall of Kime) in its desired position as well as allowing for less down time, repair, and cleaning with its placement. Such a combination would then be a nozzle mounted on the bottom panel of Kime (as is shown the fluid path going through the bottom wall in figure 6) and applying the brine from the nozzle to the auger adjoining the position of the auger (as is shown in figure 6), where the exterior surface of the bottom panel then has the mounting adapter 72 of Bostrom affixed thereon.
Debro, column 12 rows 5-20, discloses utilizing threading to remove a nozzle so as to clean or replace the nozzle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize threading of a nozzle in a system to the remove a nozzle from a nozzle aperture to clean the nozzle or even replace with a different nozzle as desired as taught by Debro with the now threaded nozzle in the combination of Kime and Bostrom.
With respect to claim 12, Kime as modified discloses the mechanism is accessed from the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel (as shown by Kime, being the bottom of the hopper body panel, and understood being accessible such that the nozzle can be unthreaded and cleaned or replaced as desired).
With respect to claim 13, Kime as modified discloses (in the above rejection of claim 7) the removability mechanism further comprises: an adapter having a threaded adapter hole (Bostrom: being the adapter of 72 having a threaded hole), a threaded adapter surface (being the surface of the threads), a topside end (72s top side), and an underside end (underside of 72); wherein the threaded adapter hole and threaded adapter surface are disposed on the topside end (being the topside end where the threads are located); and wherein the brine nozzle is capable of being securely screwed and tightened into the threaded adapter hole (as shown in figure 4, here the nozzle is tightened into the threaded adapter hole where the threads of the nozzle correspond with that of the adapter).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to disclose “wherein the removability mechanism further comprises: a sealed port located on the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel; said port having a circular flange extending perpendicularly outward from the exterior surface of the hopper body bottom panel; wherein the circular flange has interior and exterior surfaces and possesses a through-hole from an exterior surface of the flange to the opposite side flange exterior surface; a through-hole which extends from an exterior surface of the brine nozzle to the opposite side brine nozzle exterior surface; wherein the brine nozzle can be inserted into the port in such a way that through-holes located on the port and brine nozzle align; and a pin which can be inserted into the aligned through-holes to securely fasten the brine nozzle into the sealed port.”
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (10/22/2025) has been entered. Currently claims Currently claims 1-13 are pending and claims 1 and 8 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims has failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (07/22/2025).
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the terms “removability mechanism” and “locking mechanism” should not be interpreted under 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art looking at these two terms, without the specification, would not know what they were. The terms both include a nonce term and a generic placeholder, the nonce terms being removability and locking, and the generic placeholder being mechanism. There is no 112(a) or 112(b) rejection, as indicated by applicant, their specification discloses what these limitations are (as shown in pages 3 and 4 within their specification). The examiner notes both limitations meet the 3-prong analysis found in MPEP 2181 I. Furthermore, applicant themselves had to utilize their specification to disclose what the removability device was, showing that the claim language was such that the specification was needed to disclose what the removability mechanism was.
Applicants first argument is that Bostrom is non-analogous prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Bostrom is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Bostrom is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, and is understood as within the field of endeavor being a material applied to a an auger system which is then expelled from the auger to a surface, it is understood that Bostrom and Kime both have different intended uses, but both system are utilizes particles within an auger to be transported and dispersed. Applicant further argues that Bostrom is silent on the issues of such removability mechanisms and the intended use thereof. Bostrom discloses the claimed limitation, but they are noted doing so for different reasons. Just becomes the functions are different, does not negate the criticality of Bostrom for having different reasons for doing what is currently being claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that the combination would destroy the reference of Kime, examiner respectfully disagrees, it is unclear how the reference of Kime would be destroyed by wetting the salt with the brine within the auger with a nozzle positioned so. Applicant argues such a combination would result in the salt leaving the hopper before it is then mixed with the brine soliton outside the hopper, examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 6 of Kime discloses the brine via valve 334 being sent into where the auger is located (and even noted showing that the arrows direct the brine to the bottom of where the auger is, and extending into the augers space). This is showing that the brine solution via pump 330 and valve 334 is applied within the cavity area of the auger which is in the bottom of the housing of the hopper. The primary reference of Kime, shown in figure 6, shows the brine being applied through the bottom of the augers wall via the lines from 334, the missing element was the actual nozzle and how they are integrated to bring the brine within the auger, which was where Bostrom came in, showing how a nozzle within an auger is utilized to bring in a fluid that is then applied to the material in the auger system being moved by the auger. It is understood that Kime also has brine spray bar at 344 after valve 349, but this is additional application of Brine different from what is show with valve 334. See column 11 rows 30-40. See figure annotated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752