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 01/07/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect of the prior art of Xiang, the Applicant argued that “As is clear from the image, the flow of material through the agitator mill does not pass through the free front surface of the basket (or first separation turbine 1, at the left- hand side of the image), because the slits (or first separation hole 111, where arrows A and AB lead) do not lead into that free front surface of the basket”.
In response to this argument, the Applicant used the fig.19 of the prior art of Xiang to support this argument, however fig.3 the prior art of clearly showing the elements (111); the prior art of Xiang discloses wherein the slits (111) lead into a free front surface of the basket, the free front surface faces away from the grinding chamber.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Xiang does not disclose "on an outlet side, the agitator shaft has a basket" but instead (as depicted in the above figure) features a basket (first separation turbine 1) opposite both the inlet (or feed pipe 260) and outlet (or material outlet channel 510) side of the agitator mill”.
In response to this argument, claim 1 is required “on an outlet side, the agitator shaft has a basket”; and
The prior art of Xiang discloses on an outlet side (see fig.10 below: the outlet side where the material exit throws the output channel (510)), the agitator shaft has a basket (fig.1: (1))
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant argued that “Xiang does not appear to disclose the claimed "expansion and/or shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally", as each of the figures of Xiang (and the written description) fail to depict or describe a slit with varied geometry”.
In response to this argument, claim 1 is required “whereby expansion and/or shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally”; and
Fig.4 of the prior art of Xiang showing the elements (111 “corresponding to slits”) having incline side which meet the limitation of “shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally”
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “While the flow pattern of Canepa appears to be more similar to that of Applicant's claimed invention, the slits (or slot-like recesses 46) clearly do not "lead into a free front surface of the basket" but instead are literal slots (or slot- like recesses 42) cut into the body of the basket (or cavity 40) as shown in FIG. 2 - the element has a defined continuous perimeter which does not breach the end portion 38”.
In response to this argument, claim 1 is required “wherein the slits lead into a free front surface of the basket”; and
Fig.2 of the prior art of Canepa showing the elements (46 “corresponding to slits”) lead into a free front surface of the basket (the right front surface of the element (38))”
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Ganepa also fails to disclose the claimed "expansion and/or shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally", as the figures of Ganepa (and the specification) fail to depict or describe a slit with varied geometry”.
In response to this argument, claim 1 is required “whereby expansion and/or shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally”; and
Fig.3 of the prior art of Ganepa showing the elements (46 “corresponding to slits”) having expansion and/or shape of each of the slits is changed at least regionally.
Accordingly, this argument is 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiang (CN113908934A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xiang discloses an agitator mill (paragraphs 0067-0115) comprising a grinding chamber (fig.10: (212)) including grinding bodies and an agitator shaft (fig.10: (500)), the agitator shaft revolves therein about a horizontal agitator shaft axis, the agitator shaft supports several grinding members (fig.10: (600)), the grinding members are connected to the agitator shaft in a rotationally fixed manner and, the grinding members are spaced apart from one another in a direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis to form a shape of grinding disks (figs.10 and 15) to move the grinding bodies,
whereby, on an outlet side (see fig.10 above), the agitator shaft has a basket (figs.3 and 10: (1)), the basket is studded with grinding members (fig.10: (112)) on an outer circumference of the basket, and the outer circumference overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet (fig.10: (3)),
whereby a separation chamber (fig.10: the chamber between elements (1) and (3)) is formed between the inner surface of the basket and the split tube-supporting outlet (fig.10: (3)), wherein the basket has slits (fig.3: (111)) for returning the grinding bodies from the separation chamber into the grinding chamber,
wherein the slits lead into a free front surface of the basket, the free front surface faces away from the grinding chamber, whereby expansion and/or shape of each of the slits changed at least regionally (figs.3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Xiang discloses wherein the slits also pass through the wheel disk (fig.3: (12)), the wheel disk connects the basket to the agitator shaft, so that a respective slit of the slits is connected to the grinding chamber via the wheel disk.
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Xiang discloses wherein the basket having a stabilization ring (fig.1: the front ring of the element (1)) formed on a side or in a region of a free end of the basket, and wherein the slits tunnel under the stabilization ring
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Xiang discloses wherein each of the slits having a main axis extend parallel to the horizontal agitator shaft axis (fig.3).
Regarding claim 5, Xiang discloses wherein the flanks of the slits, which advance in the working direction of rotation, have an angle of attack of 0° to 45° with respect to the imaginary radial through their main axis (fig.4: the flanks of the element (111)).
Regarding claim 6, Xiang discloses a basket (figs.3 and 10: (1)) is studded with grinding members (fig.10: (112)) on an outer circumference of the basket, and the outer circumference overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet (fig.10: (3)), wherein the basket comprising: slits (fig.3: (111)) lead into a free front surface of the basket, the free front surface faces away from a grinding chamber (fig.10: the chamber between elements (1) and (2)), whereby expansion and/or shape of each of the slits changed at least regionally.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Canepa (US4620673A).
Regarding claim 1, Canepa discloses an agitator mill (abstract ) comprising a grinding chamber (fig.1: (18)) including grinding bodies and an agitator shaft (fig.1:(22)), the agitator shaft revolves therein about a horizontal agitator shaft axis, the agitator shaft supports several grinding members (fig.1: (24)), the grinding members are connected to the agitator shaft in a rotationally fixed manner, the grinding members are spaced apart from one another in a direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis, to form a shape of grinding disks (fig.3) to move the grinding bodies,
whereby, on an outlet side, the agitator shaft has a basket (fig.2: (38)), the basket is studded with the grinding members (fig.2: 24)) on an outer circumference basket, and the outer circumference overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet (fig.2: (42)), whereby a separation chamber (fig.1: the chamber between elements (38) and (42)) is formed between the inner surface of the basket and the split tube-supporting outlet (fig.2: (42)),
wherein the basket has slits (fig.3: (46)) for returning the grinding bodies from the separation chamber into the grinding chamber, wherein the slits lead into a free front surface of the basket, the free front surface faces away from the grinding chamber, whereby expansion and/or shape of each of the slits changed at least regionally (figs.2-4).
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