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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be re-written as following:
An agitator mill comprising a grinding chamber, the grinding chamber including grinding bodies and an agitator shaft,
the agitator shaft revolves therein about a horizontal agitator shaft axis, the agitator shaft supports several grinding members, 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, the several grinding members in a shape of grinding disk to move the grinding bodies, whereby, on an outlet side, the agitator shaft has a basket, the basket having an outer circumference studded with grinding members,
the basket overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet, whereby the basket has a section with an enlarged outer diameter 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, the ramp runs obliquely to the horizontal agitator shaft axis and the ramp has a smooth jacket surface, the smooth jacket surface is intersected by webs and/or aperture.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the agitator shaft axis” should be changed to “the horizontal agitator shaft axis”.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 2-3 the phrase “on its circumferential jacket surface, the section with the enlarged outer diameter supports grinding members” should be changed to “the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are supported on a circumferential jacket surface of the section with the enlarged outer diameter”.
Regarding claim 5, in lines 4-5 the phrase “which are set up one behind the other in the circumferential direction” should be changed to “the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are set up one behind other in a circumferential direction”.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 1-3 the phrase “which is to be added subsequently, preferably by screwing to an agitator shaft and which is preferably studded with grinding members on its outer circumference” should be changed to “the basket is to be added subsequently by screwing to an agitator shaft, the basket having an outer circumference studded with grinding members”.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 3-5 the phrase “overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet in the assembled position, whereby the basket has a section with an enlarged outer diameter in the region of its free end” should be changed to “the basket overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet in an assembled position, whereby the basket has a section with an enlarged outer diameter in a region of a free end of the basket”.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 6-9 the phrase “characterized in that on the side facing away from the free end of the basket, the section with the enlarged outer diameter forms a ramp, which runs obliquely to the horizontal and which has a smooth jacket surface, which is intersected by webs and/or apertures” should be changed to “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, the ramp runs obliquely to a horizontal axis, and the ramp has a smooth jacket surface, the smooth jacket surface is intersected by webs and/or apertures”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the agitator shaft axis” should be changed to “the horizontal agitator shaft axis”.
Regarding claim 10, in lines 1-2 the phrase “on its circumferential jacket surface, the section with the enlarged outer diameter supports grinding members” should be changed to “the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are supported on a circumferential jacket surface of the section with the enlarged outer diameter”.
Regarding claim 10, in lines 4-5 the phrase “which are set up one behind the other in the circumferential direction” should be changed to “the grinding members of the section with the enlarged outer diameter are set up one behind other in a circumferential direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“A basket, formed as a replacement part, which is to be added subsequently, preferably by screwing to an agitator shaft; and assembled position” as recited in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites the terms " A basket, formed as a replacement part, which is to be added subsequently, preferably by screwing to an agitator shaft; and the assembled position" which was not described in the specification to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention; the specification does not disclose or give any details regarding the terms of “formed as a replacement part, which is to be added subsequently, preferably by screwing to an agitator shaft; and the assembled position”.
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 1-10 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 claims 1, 5, 7 and 10 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, in line 4 the phrase “which are connected to it” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “which are connected to it” as “the grinding member are connected to agitator shaft”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 7 the phrase “which overlaps the split tube-supporting outlet” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element “overlaps the split tube-supporting outlet”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “which overlaps the split tube-supporting outlet” as “the basket overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the split tube-supporting outlet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the side" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “smooth” in claims 1, 4, 7 and 9 and is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the length" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 8 and 9, the phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the phrase "better" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp, which is possibly formed by it” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “which is possibly formed by it”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp, which is possibly formed by it” as “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp”.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the phrase "ideally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shape of grinding rods" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the shape of at least one ring of grinding rods" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the other" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Regarding claim 7, in lines 3-4 the phrase “overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element “overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet”
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “which overlaps the split tube-supporting outlet” as “the basket overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the assembled position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the region" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the horizontal" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the length" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp, which is possibly formed by it” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “which is possibly formed by it”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp, which is possibly formed by it” as “the section with the enlarged outer diameter has a smooth jacket surface outside of the ramp”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the shape of grinding rods" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the shape of at least one ring of grinding rods" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the other" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)) including grinding bodies (fig.2: (42)) and an agitator shaft (fig.2: (24)), which revolves therein about a horizontal agitator shaft axis (fig.2: (23)), which supports several grinding members (fig.2: (35)), which are connected to it in a rotationally fixed manner and which are spaced apart from one another in the direction of the horizontal axis (fig.2), preferably in the shape of grinding disks, which move the grinding bodies, whereby, on the outlet side (fig.2: (19)), the agitator shaft has a basket (fig.2: (25)), which is preferably studded with grinding members (fig.2: (36)) on its outer circumference and which overlaps the 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 the region of its free end (fig.2: the right end of the element (25) at element (34)),
characterized in that on the side facing away from the free end of the basket, the section with the enlarged outer diameter forms a ramp (fig.2: (26)), which runs obliquely to the horizontal and which has a smooth jacket surface (fig.2: the surface of the element (26) is smooth “relative term”), which 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 (fig.2: the surface of the element (25), where the elements 36 are attached, is smooth (relative term)), which is possibly formed by it.
Regarding claim 5, Pausch discloses on its circumferential jacket surface, the section with the enlarged outer diameter supports grinding members (fig.2: (36)), preferably in the shape of grinding rods, ideally in the shape of at least one ring of grinding rods, which are set up one behind the other in the circumferential direction (fig.2).
Regarding claim 6, Pausch discloses the free ends of the grinding members (fig.2: (35)) of the agitator shaft end at the same diameter as the 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 (fig.2: the surface of the element (25), where the elements 36 are attached, is smooth (relative term)), which is possibly formed by it.
Regarding claim 10, Pausch discloses characterized in that on its circumferential jacket surface, the section with the enlarged outer diameter supports grinding members (fig.2: (36)), preferably in the shape of grinding rods, ideally in the shape of at least one ring of grinding rods, which are set up one behind the other in the circumferential direction (fig.2).
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, which is possibly formed by it, in the direction along the agitator shaft axis, accounts for between 45% and 20%, better between 30% and 25%, of the length of the basket in the direction of the agitator shaft axis.
However, 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, which is possibly formed by it, in the direction along the agitator shaft axis, accounts for between 45% and 20%, better between 30% and 25%, of the length of the basket in the direction of the 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), which is to be added subsequently, preferably by screwing to an agitator shaft (fig.2: (24)) and which is preferably studded with grinding members (fig.2: (36)) on its outer circumference and overlaps a split tube-supporting outlet (fig.2: the tube of the element (34)) in the 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 the region of its free end (fig.2: the right end of the element (25) at element (34)), characterized in that on the side facing away from the free end of the basket, the section with the enlarged outer diameter forms a ramp (fig.2: (26)), which runs obliquely to the horizontal and which has a smooth jacket surface (fig.2: the surface of the element (26) is smooth (relative term)), which is intersected by webs and/or apertures (fig.2: (39)).
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).
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