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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/22/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-14 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8-14 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 claim 8, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is to an apparatus for an apparatus configured to remove flexible material from rotating equipment; and the body of the claim does not clear about how the apparatus is configured remove flexible material.
Regarding claim 8, in line 3 the phrase “within a frame” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element having “a frame”;
Further, the phrase “within a frame” render the claim indefinite because the examiner notes “based upon the Applicant’s specification” that the frame is part of the rotating equipment; and a rotating equipment is recited in the preamble of the claim, however the claim appears to be drawn to an apparatus configured to remove flexible material as set forth in line 2. Therefore, the recitation of "a frame" in the body of the claim renders the claim unclear because it is unclear if the scope of the claim is to a rotating equipment including a frame and an apparatus configured to remove flexible material from rotating equipment or merely an apparatus configured to remove flexible material. The frame does not appear to be positively recited in the body of the claim.
Claims 9-14 are rejected because they depend from claim 8.
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 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vantrease (US20130175379A1).
Regarding claim 8, Vantrease discloses an apparatus configured to remove flexible material from rotating equipment (abstract; paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0033-0035), the apparatus comprising:
a roller assembly (figs.13-15: (175)) positioned within a frame (fig.12: (112)) (paragraphs 0041-0045);
at least one first shearing element ((figs.13-15: the shearing scissor roll (175))) extending radially from the roller assembly; and
at least one second shearing element (figs.13-15: (154)) secured to the frame and configured to contact the at least one first shearing element extending radially from the roller assembly (figs.2 and 13-15).
Regarding claim 13, Vantrease discloses wherein the roller comprises at least two shredder disks (fig.15) extending radially from the roller and a roller spacer (fig.15: (192)) defining a space between the at least two disks (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 14, Vantrease discloses wherein the at least one first shearing element and the at least one second shearing element are axially aligned with the roller spacer between the at least two shredder disks (paragraph 0045 and fig.2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US4173177A).
Regarding claim 8, Davis discloses an apparatus configured to remove flexible material (intended use) from rotating equipment (abstract; col.2 last 15 lines-col.4), the apparatus comprising:
a roller assembly (fig.2: (26)) positioned within a frame (fig.2: the frame of the element (2));
at least one first shearing element (fig.2: (36)) extending radially from the roller assembly; and
at least one second shearing element (fig.3: (40)) secured to the frame and configured to contact the at least one first shearing element extending radially from the roller assembly (figs.3 and 5).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US4173177A).
Regarding claim 9, Davis does not disclose wherein the at least one second shearing element is configured to rotate relative to the frame between an engaged position and a disengaged position;
However, Davis discloses wherein the at least one second shearing element is configured to move relative to the frame between an engaged position and a disengaged position (col.3 lines last 27 lines);
It appears both of the configuration of the Applicant disclosure and the prior art of Davis lead to the same result of having the at least one second shearing element has an engaged position and a disengaged position;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the engaged-disengaged means of Davis by any engaged-disengaged means, including wherein the at least one second shearing element is configured to rotate relative to the frame between an engaged position and a disengaged position in order to control the position of the scarper blade with respect to the roller (Davis: col.3 lines last 27 lines). MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 10, Davis discloses wherein the at least one second shearing element is configured to contact with the at least one first shearing element in the engaged position (col.3 lines last 27 lines).
Regarding claim 11, Davis discloses wherein the at least one second shearing element is configured to define a space between the at least one first shearing element and the at least one second shearing element in the disengaged position (col.3 lines last 27 lines).
Regarding claim 12, Davis discloses a movement mechanism (fig.3: (46)) configured to move the at least one second shearing element between the engaged position and the disengaged position (col.3 lines last 27 lines).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights