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 05/13/2026 with respect to the prior art of Pausch (US20200324297A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “Pausch's element 25 is not a basket. It is an integral section of the stirring shaft itself; there is no indication in Pausch that section 25 is a separable structure, a container, or a support structure that exists independently of the shaft. By contrast, the present application describes the basket as a structurally distinct component that is separate from the agitator shaft. The specification at paragraph [0019] states: "the agitator shaft and the basket are thereby preferably not formed integrally with one another, which is why agitator shaft and basket represent two individual parts, and the agitator shaft does not take over any direct tasks of the basket." The specification further explains, at paragraph [0010], that "the basket 6 is attached in a rotationally fixed manner on the free end of the agitator shaft 3 facing the outlet 7." These passages confirm that the claimed basket is a distinct component from the agitator shaft, one that is attached to the shaft rather than being a section of the shaft”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a separable structure, a container, or a support structure that exists independently of the shaft; the agitator shaft and the basket are thereby preferably not formed integrally with one another, which is why agitator shaft and basket represent two individual parts, and the agitator shaft does not take over any direct tasks of the basket; and the basket is a distinct component from the agitator shaft, one that is attached to the shaft rather than being a section of the shaft) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Further; the claim is rejected as filed, and the claim is required “the agitator shaft has a basket”;
Furthermore; the definition of the basket is a container for holding or carrying things; and
the prior art of Pausch discloses the element (25), and by the definition of the basked the element (25) is a container for holding or carrying things;
therefore, the prior art of Pausch discloses “the agitator shaft (fig.2: (24)) has a basket (fig.2: (25))”.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “the Examiner's mapping of the term "smooth jacket surface" to Pausch's disclosure is unsupported. The Office Action states that "the surface of the element (26) is smooth 'relative term"' (emphasis added). The parenthetical notation "relative term" is a significant admission: the Examiner does not point to any passage in Pausch that describes element 26 or element 25 as having a "smooth" surface. Rather, the Examiner infers smoothness from the drawings. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation requires that the reference expressly or inherently disclose each limitation. A bare inference from a drawing, without any textual support or inherency analysis, is insufficient to establish anticipation. See MPEP § 2131”.
In response to applicant's argument, the claim is rejected as filed, and the claim is required “a ramp runs obliquely to the horizontal”;
Further, the definition of the ramp is a sloping surface, plane, or roadway that connects two different levels; and
the prior art of Pausch discloses the element (fig.2: (26)) runs obliquely to the horizontal; and
the prior art of Pausch discloses the element (fig.2: (26)) having the inclined channels (39) (paragraphs 0014, 0032- and 0034),
therefore, the prior art of Pausch discloses “a ramp (fig.2: (26)) runs obliquely to the horizontal”.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “a transition section 26 between the first stirring shaft section 24 of a smaller diameter D24 and the second stirring shaft section 25 of a larger diameter D25 is assigned to the first stirring shaft section 24" (paragraph [0028]). A "transition section" between two shaft portions of different diameter is not the same as a "ramp" as recited in Claim 1. The present application describes the ramp as a specific structural feature of the basket that serves to constrict the radial gap between the basket and the inner wall of the grinding container, thereby increasing local flow speed and turbulence (specification paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). The ramp is described as running "obliquely to the horizontal agitator shaft axis" with a purposeful geometry designed to enhance grinding body dynamics. Pausch provides no indication that transition section 26 serves any such function, and does not describe its angular orientation relative to the axis”.
In response to applicant's argument, in page 10 of the remarks section of the Applicant response on 05/13/2026; the Applicant argued that “In the field of agitator mill design, a person of ordinary skill would understand "smooth" applied to a jacket surface to mean a surface without raised structural features such as grinding members, ribs, or protrusions. This understanding is consistent with the standard usage of "smooth" in mechanical engineering to describe a surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry”;
Further, the prior art of Pausch discloses the element (fig.2: (26)), the element (26) having an outside surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry; and
According to the Applicant’s argument of the definition of smooth, the prior art of Pausch discloses the ramp (fig.2: (26)) has a smooth jacket surface
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “With respect to Claims 4 and 9 (as amended), these claims recite that "the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp." As discussed above, Pausch does not disclose a smooth jacket surface”.
In response to applicant's argument, in page 10 of the remarks section of the Applicant response on 05/13/2026; the Applicant argued that “In the field of agitator mill design, a person of ordinary skill would understand "smooth" applied to a jacket surface to mean a surface without raised structural features such as grinding members, ribs, or protrusions. This understanding is consistent with the standard usage of "smooth" in mechanical engineering to describe a surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry”;
Further, the enlarged outer diameter (10) of fig.4 of the Applicant’s disclosure has a grinding member (11); and as understood from the Applicant’ disclosure the smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp is the surface between the elements (11) of the enlarged outer diameter;
Furthermore, the prior art of Pausch discloses the element (figs.2 and 4: (25)), the element (25) has an outer diameter, and the outside surface of the outer diameter between elements (36) is a surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry; and
According to the Applicant’s argument of the definition of smooth, the prior art of Pausch discloses the section with the enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp (fig.2: the surface of the element (25) between elements (36));
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “With respect to Claims 5 and 10 (as amended), these claims recite grinding members "in a shape of grinding rods and arranged in a shape of at least one ring of grinding rods." Pausch describes its stirring elements as "stirring pins" (paragraph [0031]). Grinding rods and stirring pins are distinct structural elements: a rod is elongated along its longitudinal axis, while a pin is typically a shorter fastener-type element. Pausch does not disclose grinding members in the shape of rods”.
In response to applicant's argument, although the prior art of Pausch called the element (36) is a pin, its elongated cylindrical configuration makes it a rod-shaped element.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “claims 3 and 8 (as amended) recite that "the section with the enlarged outer diameter, including the ramp, in a direction along the horizontal agitator shaft axis, accounts for between 45% and 20% of a length of the basket in the direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis." The Examiner acknowledges that Pausch does not disclose this dimensional limitation, but asserts that "choosing the dimensions of the parts of the mill is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The claimed dimensional range of 20% to 45% is not an arbitrary design parameter. The specification explains, at paragraph [0034], that this range is selected to avoid an excessive throttling effect: " It is particularly favorable when the agitator mill is characterized in that the section with the enlarged outer diameter, including the ramp ... accounts for only between 45% and 20% ... of the length of the basket in the direction of the agitator shaft axis. It is avoided thereby that the enlarged outer diameter as a whole develops a throttling effect, which is too strong, thus increases the flow resistance so far that the goal of forming a flow, which allows for the grinding bodies to enter into the separation chamber more dynamically than before, is counteracted." This passage demonstrates that the claimed dimensional range is the product of specific technical considerations, namely balancing the increased flow speed and turbulence achieved by the enlarged diameter section (specification paragraphs [0027]- [0028]) against the risk of excessive flow resistance that would negate those benefits. A dimensional range selected to achieve a particular technical trade-off is not a "routine engineering design choice." Also, the Examiner provides no evidence, whether from Pausch or from any other source, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed 20%-45% range, or that this range would have been arrived at through routine optimization. Pausch does not discuss any dimensional relationship between its transition section 26 and the length of shaft section 25. The Examiner's assertion of routine design choice is conclusory and lacks the required "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of Claims 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response to applicant's argument, the prior art of Pausch discussed the lengths of the sections L24, L25 and L39 in order to the material to be ground, which is supplied to the separating device in the bypass, is already freed from auxiliary milling bodies and coarse particles of material to be ground to the desired extent (paragraphs 0013, 0029 and 0032);
Therefore, selecting an optimum ranged is considered routine optimization within skill in the art; and
choosing the dimensions of the parts of the mill is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinding process as desired.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “claim 7 (as amended) recites a basket "configured as a separate component for attachment to an agitator shaft," among other limitations. The Examiner acknowledges that Pausch does not disclose the basket as a separate component, and asserts that it would have been obvious to make the basket "formed as a replacement part for the purpose of the maintenance and repairing," citing MPEP § 2144(V)(C). Applicant respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 2144(V)(C) addresses the concept that making components integral or separable may be obvious in certain circumstances. However, this principle does not apply where, as here, the modification would fundamentally alter the structure and function of the prior art device. Pausch's element 25 is an integral section of the stirring shaft 22. Converting this integral shaft section into a separate, detachable basket assembly would require redesigning the shaft to terminate before section 25, designing a coupling mechanism between the shaft and the now-separate basket, and ensuring that the structural integrity and rotational dynamics of the system are maintained with the modified configuration. This is not a matter of simply making one component separable from another: it requires reconceiving the fundamental architecture of the device from a unitary shaft design to a modular shaft-and-basket design. Furthermore, the Examiner's motivation statement is conclusory. The assertion that a person of ordinary skill would separate the components "for the purpose of the maintenance and repairing" lacks any factual foundation. Pausch does not discuss maintenance of the shaft section 25 as a concern, does not suggest that this component is subject to wear requiring replacement, and does not teach or suggest that a modular basket design would be beneficial for maintenance. The motivation to modify must come from the references themselves, the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill, or the nature of the problem, not from hindsight review of the applicant's disclosure”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In this case, it is very known in art to make parts separable in mechanical engineering is a core design strategy that drastically simplifies maintenance, reduces manufacturing costs, and allows for interchangeable assemblies. It enables engineers to replace only worn-out components instead of entire systems, upgrade specific parts over time, and easily transport complex machines;
Separable parts (joined by fasteners, threads, or snap-fits) offer highly practical benefits that impact both the production and the lifecycle of a product:
Efficient Maintenance and Repair: If a single part in a machine, you only need to replace that single part, not the entire machine. This saves massive amounts of money and downtime.
Easier Manufacturing: Complex parts are often impossible or incredibly expensive to machine as a single block. Separating them allows engineers to use simpler, more economical manufacturing processes (e.g., standard turning and grinding) and assemble them later.
Upgradability: Designing with separable components allows consumers or operators to upgrade specific parts (like swapping a battery or upgrading a processor) without buying an entirely new device.
Logistics and Shipping: Breaking down a massive machine into smaller, separable pieces allows for easier packing, transportation, and final assembly at the customer's site.
Material Sorting and Recycling: With modern "Design for Disassembly" principles, separable parts allow for the quick segregation of different materials (metals, plastics, rubber) so they can be properly recycled
Further, Pausch does not disclose formed as a replacement part;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to Pausch to make the basked formed as a replacement part for the purpose of the maintenance and repairing. (MPEP 2144 V. C).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 6-7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the free ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the same diameter" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The lack of clear transitional phrases in independent claim 7 render the claim indefinite as it cannot clearly be determined where the preamble ends and the body of the claim starts. See MPEP 2111.03.
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, 2, 4-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pausch (US20200324297A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pausch discloses an agitator mill (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0038) comprising a grinding chamber (fig.2: (37)), the grinding chamber including grinding bodies (fig.2: (42)) and an agitator shaft (fig.2: (24)),
the agitator shaft revolves therein about a horizontal agitator shaft axis (fig.2: (23)), the agitator shaft supports several grinding members (fig.2: (35)), the several grinding members are connected to the agitator shaft in a rotationally fixed manner and the several grinding members are spaced apart from one another in a direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis (fig.2), the several grinding members in a shape of grinding disks , to move the grinding bodies, whereby, on an outlet side (fig.2: (19)), the agitator shaft has a basket (fig.2: (25)), the basket having an outer circumference studded with grinding members (fig.2: (36)),
the basket overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet (fig.2: the tube of the element (34)), whereby the basket has a section with an enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) in a region of a free end of the basket,
characterized in that on a side facing away from the free end of the basket, the section with the enlarged outer diameter forms a ramp (fig.2: (26)), the ramp runs obliquely to the horizontal agitator shaft axis (the element (fig.2: (26)) runs obliquely to the horizontal; and the element (fig.2: (26)) having the inclined channels (39) (paragraphs 0014, 0032- and 0034)) and the ramp has a smooth jacket surface (the element (26) having an outside surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry), the smooth jacket surface is intersected by webs and/or apertures (fig.2: (39)).
Regarding claim 2, Pausch discloses the section with the enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) reaches directly to the free end (fig.2: fig.2: the right end of the element (25) at element (34)) of the basket.
Regarding claim 4, Pausch discloses the section with the enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp (figs.2 and 4: the element (25) has an outer diameter, and the outside surface of the outer diameter between elements (36) is a surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry).
Regarding claim 5, Pausch discloses the grinding members (fig.2: (36)) of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are supported on a circumferential jacket surface of the section with the enlarged outer diameter, the grinding members being in a shape of grinding rods and arranged in a shape of at least one ring of grinding rods, the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter being set up one behind another in a circumferential direction (figs.2 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Pausch discloses the free ends of grinding members (fig.2: (35)) of the agitator shaft end at the same diameter as remaining grinding members (fig.2: (36)) supported by the basket.
Regarding claim 9, Pausch discloses the section with the enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp (figs.2 and 4: the element (25) has an outer diameter, and the outside surface of the outer diameter between elements (36) is a surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry).
Regarding claim 10, Pausch discloses the grinding members (fig.2: (36)) of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are supported on a circumferential jacket surface of the section with the enlarged outer diameter, the grinding members being in a shape of grinding rods and arranged in a shape of at least one ring of grinding rods, the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter being set up one behind another in a circumferential direction (figs.2 and 4).
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 3, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pausch (US20200324297A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Pausch does not disclose the section with the enlarged outer diameter, including the ramp, in a direction along the horizontal agitator shaft axis, accounts for between 45% and 20% of a length of the basket in the direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis.
the prior art of Pausch discussed the lengths of the sections L24, L25 and L39 in order to the material to be ground, which is supplied to the separating device in the bypass, is already freed from auxiliary milling bodies and coarse particles of material to be ground to the desired extent (paragraphs 0013, 0029 and 0032);
Therefore, selecting an optimum ranged is considered routine optimization within skill in the art; and
choosing the dimensions of the parts of the mill is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinding process as desired.
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the size of basket as desired, including the section with the enlarged outer diameter, including the ramp, in a direction along the horizontal agitator shaft axis, accounts for between 45% and 20% of a length of the basket in the direction of the horizontal agitator shaft axis; in order to obtain a mill having a basket with specific dimensions as desired.
Regarding claim 7, Pausch discloses a basket (fig.2: (25)) (abstract and paragraphs 0032-0038) for an agitator mill, the basket configured as a component for attachment to an agitator shaft (fig.2: (24)), the basket having an outer circumference studded with grinding members (fig.2: (36)), the basket overlapping a split tube- supporting outlet (fig.2: the tube of the element (34)) in an assembled position (fig.2),
whereby the basket has a section with an enlarged outer diameter (fig.2: the outer diameter of the element (25)) in a region of a free end of the basket (fig.2: the right end of the element (25) at element (34)),
characterized in that on a side facing away from the free end of the basket, the section with the enlarged outer diameter forms a ramp (fig.2: (26)), which the ramp runs obliquely to a horizontal agitator shaft axis (the element (fig.2: (26)) runs obliquely to the horizontal; and the element (fig.2: (26)) having the inclined channels (39) (paragraphs 0014, 0032- and 0034)) and the ramp has a smooth jacket surface (the element (26) having an outside surface that is free from projections or irregularities relative to the surrounding surface geometry), the smooth jacket surface is intersected by webs and/or apertures (fig.2: (39)).
Pausch does not disclose the basket configured as a separate component;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to Pausch to make the basket configured as a separate component for the purpose of the maintenance and repairing. (MPEP 2144 V. C).
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
Prosecution Insights