DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The Amendment filed February 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 29th, 2025.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11-15, 20, 22-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Papke (US 20160316615 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Papke discloses a mobile assembly (100, Fig. 1) for delivering materials to a road surface (105, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0006), the assembly (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (102, Fig. 1) having a front and rear end (shown in Fig. 1), and one or more wheels (106, 108, Fig. 1) configured for supporting the chassis (102, shown in Fig. 1) above the road surface (105, shown in Fig. 1) intermediate said front and rear ends (shown in Fig. 1);
a hopper (204, Fig. 1) mounted on the chassis (102, shown in Fig. 1) having an inlet (opening of hopper 204 that cover 203 covers, 207, shown in Figs. 1-3) at an upper portion (top portion of hopper 204, shown in Figs. 1-3) thereof for receiving the materials in the hopper (204, open-top container allows material to be contained within hopper 204 where interior volume 207 is, Paragraphs 0033, 0039), and an outlet (241, Figs. 3, 5) at a lower portion of the hopper (204, shown in Figs. 3, 5); and
a metering wheel (202, rotating spinner 202 serves to meter and discharge granular material 205 from hopper 204, Figs. 1, 5, Paragraph 0041) extending beneath the outlet (241, shown in Fig. 5) for receiving the material therefrom (Paragraph 0041), a speed of rotation of the metering wheel (202, Fig. 1) configured for controllably delivering a volume of the materials to the road surface (105, a volume of the material is broadcast to the ground surface in a pattern that is influenced by the rotational speed of the spinner, which is controlled to rotate at variable speeds, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034);
wherein the assembly (100, Fig. 1) further comprises a stirrer (220, Figs. 3, 5) located within the hopper (204, shown in Fig. 5) and above the outlet (241, shown in Fig. 5) and being configured to agitate the material within the hopper (interpreting as the stirrer being configured to agitate the material as the stirrer being configured to move with an irregular, rapid, or violent action, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 204, output shaft 220 can have an agitator not explicitly shown to break up clumps of the material as the shaft 220 rotates, shown in Figs. 1-5, Paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 11, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses a flow rate of the materials between the stirrer (220, Figs. 3, 5) and the metering wheel (202, Fig. 1) is constant (an end of the output shaft 220 attaches to spinner 202, resulting in corresponding rotation and speed of the spinner 202 as well as flow of granular material from the hopper, Paragraphs 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 12, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses a cross-sectional area of the hopper (204, Figs. 1-5) proximal the upper portion (top and widest portion of hopper 204, shown in Figs. 1-5) thereof is larger than a cross-sectional area of the hopper (204, Figs. 1-5) proximal the lower portion (bottom and narrowest portion of hopper 204, shown in Figs. 1-5) thereof whereby the materials are funnelled towards the outlet (241, shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses one or more side walls (209, 210, 211, 212, shown in Figs. 1-3, 5) of the hopper (204, Figs. 1-5) defines a sloped surface (shown in Figs. 1-3, 5).
With respect to claim 14, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses the hopper (204, Fig. 1) is arranged as an inverted frustum rectangular pyramid (shown in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 15, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses the outlet (241, Figs. 3, 5) is an elongate rectangular opening (shown in Fig. 3) arranged transversely across a base of the hopper (206, shown in Fig. 3).
In regards to claim 20, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses a speed of rotation of the metering wheel (202, Figs. 1, 5) and the stirrer (220, Figs. 3, 5) is equivalent (an end of the output shaft 220 attaches to spinner 202, resulting in corresponding rotation and speed of the spinner 202, Paragraphs 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 22, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 20. Papke further discloses a motor (216, Fig. 3) is configured to drive the rotation of the metering wheel (202, Figs. 1, 5) and the stirrer (220, motor 216 is controlled to rotate the shaft 220 and the spinner 202 at variable speeds, Figs. 3, 5, Paragraphs 0034-0035).
With respect to claim 23, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 22. Papke further discloses the motor (216, Fig. 3) is adjustably controllable to adjust the speed of rotation of the metering wheel (202, Figs. 1, 5) and the stirrer (220, motor 216 is controlled to rotate the shaft 220 and the spinner 202 at variable speeds through controls 113, Figs. 3, 5, Paragraphs 0034-0035).
With respect to claim 24, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 22. Papke further discloses the motor (216, Fig. 3) is a hydraulic motor (motor 216 can be a hydraulic motor, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 28, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. Papke further discloses the stirrer (220, Figs. 3, 5) is configured for agitating a mass flow of the materials through the outlet (241, output shaft 220 can have an agitator not explicitly shown to break up clumps of the material as the shaft 220 rotates and the material moves out of the discharge port 241, Figs. 3, 5, Paragraph 0041).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Richardson (US Patent 3,980,236).
In regards to claim 2, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. However, Papke does not disclose the stirrer comprises a paddle having a blade that extends radially away from a shaft of the stirrer to a free distal end and is arranged to rotate about the shaft so as to agitate the material within the hopper. Richardson teaches a mobile assembly (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising the stirrer (36, Fig. 5) comprises a paddle (41, 56, Fig. 5) having a blade (reference numeral 56 is a plurality of radially outwardly directed paddles or blades, shown in Fig. 5, Col. 3, Ln. 38-41) that extends radially away from a shaft (39, Fig. 5) of the stirrer (36, shown in Fig. 5) to a free distal end (end of flights 41 and paddle/blades 56 opposite of central axis of the shaft 39, shown in Fig. 5) and is arranged to rotate about the shaft (39, Fig. 5) so as to agitate the material within the hopper (18, rotation of the auger assembly 36 rotates the paddles/blades 56, which pump the liquid manure and subject it to pressure, shown in Fig. 3, Col. 4, Ln. 53-59).
Papke and Richardson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stirrer taught in Richardson to the stirrer disclosed in Papke, to have the stirrer comprises a paddle having a blade that extends radially away from a shaft of the stirrer to a free distal end and is arranged to rotate about the shaft so as to agitate the material within the hopper. Doing so allows the system to discharge material in an even and controlled swath that eliminates a rooster comb pattern and blow-back features (Richardson, Col. 1, Ln. 36-42).
Regarding claim 3, Papke, as modified by Richardson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 2. Richardson further teaches the paddle (56, Fig. 5) comprises a plurality of the blades (reference numeral 56 is a plurality of radially outwardly directed paddles or blades, shown in Fig. 5, Col. 3, Ln. 38-41) equidistantly spaced around a centrally located ring (49, center of the paddles 56 that is connected to the shaft 39, shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Papke, as modified by Richardson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 2. Richardson further teaches a plane of the blade of the paddle (top surface of paddles/blades 56 and helical flights 41, shown in Fig. 5) is arranged on an angle relative to a longitudinal axis through the shaft (longitudinal axis of shaft 39, shown in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 6, Papke, as modified by Richardson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 2. Richardson further teaches the stirrer (36, Fig. 5) comprises a plurality of the paddles (41, 56, Fig. 5) intermediate opposing ends of the stirrer (top and bottom ends of auger 36, shown in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Papke, as modified by Richardson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 6. Richardson further teaches the plurality of paddles (56, Fig. 5) are spaced at even intervals along the shaft (39, Fig. 5) of the stirrer (36, shown in Fig. 5).
In regards to claim 16, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. However, Papke does not disclose at least one of a shaft of the stirrer and a shaft of the metering wheel extend transversely across the chassis. Richardson teaches a mobile assembly (entire structure, Fig. 1) comprising at least one of a shaft of the stirrer (39, Fig. 3) and a shaft (shaft of auger 36, shown in Fig. 3) of the metering wheel (36, Fig. 3) extend transversely across the chassis (14, shown in Fig. 3).
Papke and Richardson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stirrer taught in Richardson to the stirrer disclosed in Papke, to have at least one of a shaft of the stirrer and a shaft of the metering wheel extend transversely across the chassis. Doing so allows the system to discharge material in an even and controlled swath that eliminates a rooster comb pattern and blow-back features (Richardson, Col. 1, Ln. 36-42).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Richardson (US Patent 3,980,236) as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 20190047004 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Papke, as modified by Richardson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 4. However, Papke and Richardson do not teach the angle is 45 degrees. Anderson teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising a plane (66, Fig. 6) of the blade (22, in Fig. 6) of the paddle (20, shown in Fig. 6) is arranged on an angle (α, Fig. 6) relative to a longitudinal axis (62, shown in Fig. 6), the angle (α, Fig. 6) is 45 degrees (Paragraph 0043).
Papke, Richardson, and Anderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the angle of the plane of the blade taught in Anderson to Papke’s mobile assembly, as modified by Richardson above, to have the angle is 45 degrees. Doing so permits an aerodynamic shape that maximizes the dispersion pattern (Anderson, Paragraph 0043).
Claims 8, 10, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 20190047004 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. However, Papke does not disclose the metering wheel comprises a plurality of segments, an adjacent two of the segments being separated by a wall that extends radially away from a shaft of the metering wheel to a free distal end and longitudinally along the shaft intermediate opposing ends of the shaft. Anderson teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2) comprises a plurality of segments (segments of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2), an adjacent two of the segments (segments of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) being separated by a wall (22, Fig. 2) that extends radially away from a shaft (62, Fig. 1) of the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2) to a free distal end (end of blade 22 opposite from the end next to central portion 62, shown in Figs. 1-2) and longitudinally along the shaft (62, shown in Fig. 2) intermediate opposing ends of the shaft (top and bottom ends of central portion 62, shown in Fig. 2).
Papke and Anderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the plurality of segments and wall taught in Anderson to Papke’s mobile assembly, to have the metering wheel comprises a plurality of segments, an adjacent two of the segments being separated by a wall that extends radially away from a shaft of the metering wheel to a free distal end and longitudinally along the shaft intermediate opposing ends of the shaft. Doing so permits an aerodynamic shape that maximizes the dispersion pattern (Anderson, Paragraph 0043).
With respect to claim 10, Papke, as modified by Anderson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 8. Anderson further teaches each of the plurality of segments (segments of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) has an equivalent volume therein (volume within each segment of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Papke discloses a mobile assembly (100, Fig. 1) for delivering materials to a road surface (105, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0006), the assembly (100, Fig. 1) comprising:
a chassis (102, Fig. 1) having a front and rear end (shown in Fig. 1), and one or more wheels (106, 108, Fig. 1) configured for supporting the chassis (102, shown in Fig. 1) above the road surface (105, shown in Fig. 1) intermediate said front and rear ends (shown in Fig. 1);
a hopper (204, Fig. 1) mounted on the chassis (102, shown in Fig. 1) having an inlet (opening of hopper 204 that cover 203 covers, 207, shown in Figs. 1-3) at an upper portion (top portion of hopper 204, shown in Figs. 1-3) thereof for receiving the materials in the hopper (204, open-top container allows material to be contained within hopper 204 where interior volume 207 is, Paragraphs 0033, 0039), and an outlet (241, Figs. 3, 5) at a lower portion of the hopper (204, shown in Figs. 3, 5);
a stirrer (220, Figs. 3, 5) located within the hopper (204, shown in Fig. 5) and above the outlet (241, shown in Fig. 5) and being configured to agitate the material within the hopper (204, output shaft 220 can have an agitator not explicitly shown to break up clumps of the material as the shaft 220 rotates, shown in Figs. 1-5, Paragraph 0041); and
a metering wheel (202, rotating spinner 202 serves to meter and discharge granular material 205 from hopper 204, Figs. 1, 5, Paragraph 0041) extending beneath the outlet (241, shown in Fig. 5) for receiving the material therefrom (Paragraph 0041), wherein the metering wheel (202, Figs. 1, 5) is configured for delivering a volume of the materials to the road surface (105, Fig. 1, spinner 202 broadcasts a volume of granular material delivered from the hopper to the ground surface, Paragraph 0034) and for controlling the volume of the materials delivered to the road surface based on a speed of rotation of the metering wheel (material is broadcast to the ground surface in a pattern that is influenced by the rotational speed of the spinner, which is controlled to rotate at variable speeds, Paragraph 0034).
Papke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, except for a metering wheel comprising a plurality of segments of equivalent volume separated by a plurality of walls extending radially away from a shaft of the metering wheel. Anderson teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2) comprises a plurality of segments (segments of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) of equivalent volume (volume within each segment of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) separated by a plurality of walls (22, Fig. 2) extending radially away from a shaft (62, shown in Fig. 1) of the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2).
Papke and Anderson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the plurality of segments and the plurality of walls taught in Anderson to Papke’s mobile assembly, to have the motivation of having a metering wheel comprising a plurality of segments of equivalent volume separated by a plurality of walls extending radially away from a shaft of the metering wheel. The plurality of segments and the plurality of walls taught in Anderson’s metering wheel would be added onto Papke’s metering wheel because doing so provides an aerodynamic shape that maximizes the dispersion pattern (Anderson, Paragraph 0043).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 20190047004 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 20060006256 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Papke, as modified by Anderson, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 8. However, Papke and Anderson do not teach the metering wheel comprises a pair of end plates, the end plates each being located at an opposing end of the wall/s. Smith teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising the metering wheel (160, Fig. 8) comprises a pair of end plates (156, 170, Fig. 8), the end plates (156, 170, Fig. 8) each being located at an opposing end of the wall (164, shown in Fig. 8).
Papke, Anderson, and Smith are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the end plates taught in Smith to Papke’s mobile assembly, as modified by Anderson, to have the metering wheel comprises a pair of end plates, the end plates each being located at an opposing end of the wall. Doing so limits the directions the material is released from the metering wheel, to prevent dispersion in unwanted areas, and to prevent inadvertent insertion of a foreign object (Smith, Paragraph 0103).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of McCrory (US Patent 6,202,944).
With respect to claim 17, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. However, Papke does not disclose a shaft of the stirrer, a shaft of the metering wheel and the outlet extend parallel to one another. McCrory teaches a mobile assembly (20, Fig. 15) comprising a shaft (41, Fig. 15) of the stirrer (33, Fig. 15), a shaft (42, Fig. 15) of the metering wheel (194, 195, 196, Fig. 15) and the outlet (73, 76, adjustable gate 76 is part of the outlet means 73, Fig. 15, Col. 7, Ln. 33-36) extend parallel to one another (shown in Fig. 15).
Papke and McCrory are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the stirrer, the metering wheel, and the outlet taught in McCrory to Papke’s mobile assembly, to have a shaft of the stirrer, a shaft of the metering wheel and the outlet extend parallel to one another. Doing so allows parts to be readily removable for servicing and maintenance and a simple and economical design for modification of applications of different materials (McCrory, Col. 2, Ln. 6-15).
With respect to claim 18, Papke, as modified by McCrory, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 17. McCrory further teaches the shaft (41, Fig. 15) of the stirrer (33, Fig. 15), the shaft (42, Fig. 15) of the metering wheel (194, 195, 196, Fig. 15) and the outlet (73, 76, adjustable gate 76 is part of the outlet means 73, Fig. 15, Col. 7, Ln. 33-36) are aligned along a vertical plane (annotated in Fig. 15) that extends transversely across the chassis (annotated in Fig. 15).
PNG
media_image1.png
654
915
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Papke, as modified by McCrory, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 18. McCrory further teaches the vertical plane (annotated in Fig. 15) is aligned centrally within the hopper (30, shown in Fig. 15).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Brockmeier (US 20080110382 A1).
In regards to claim 21, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 20. However, Papke does not disclose the metering wheel and the stirrer are coupled to one another via a drive chain. Brockmeier teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising the metering wheel (46, 48, 66, Figs. 2, 5) and the stirrer (42, Figs. 2, 5) are coupled to one another via a drive chain (54, shown in Figs. 2, 5).
Papke and Brockmeier are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the drive chain taught in Brockmeier to Papke’s mobile assembly, to have the metering wheel and the stirrer are coupled to one another via a drive chain. Doing so provides easier rotational movement between the parts (Brockmeier, Paragraphs 0031, 0060).
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papke (US 20160316615 A1) in view of Schlenker et al. (US 20200248763 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Papke discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 1. However, Papke does not disclose the materials comprise cementitious material. Schlenker teaches a mobile assembly (20, Fig. 1) comprising the materials comprise cementitious material (additives such as fly ash, Portland cement, and lime can be incorporated, Paragraph 0004).
Papke and Schlenker are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mounted spreader systems. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the materials taught in Schlenker to Papke’s mobile assembly, to have the materials comprise cementitious material. Doing so increases compressive strength and reduces plasticity of the subgrade of the soil (Schlenker, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 26, Papke, as modified by Schlenker, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 25. Schlenker further teaches the cementitious material is lime based (additives such as fly ash, Portland cement, and lime can be incorporated, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 27, Papke, as modified by Schlenker, discloses the assembly as claimed in claim 25. Schlenker further teaches the cementitious material comprises an additive including one or more of hydrated lime, cement, slag lime, slag cement, fly ash or cement blends (additives such as fly ash, Portland cement, and lime can be incorporated, Paragraph 0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Papke does not anticipate the present invention in independent claim 1 under 35 USC § 102(a)(2), see Remarks, pg. 6-8, Papke does disclose the limitations of claim 1. Specifically, Papke discloses a metering wheel extending beneath the outlet for receiving the material therefrom, a speed of rotation of the metering wheel configured for controllably delivering a volume of the materials to the road surface as explained in the rejection above under claim 1. Papke states that the spinner 202 is manipulated by the controls 113 to rotate at variable speeds to broadcast a volume of granular material delivered from the hopper (Paragraphs 0034, 0041).
Additionally, Papke discloses the assembly further comprises a stirrer located within the hopper and above the outlet and being configured to agitate the material within the hopper as explained in the rejection above under claim 1. The stirrer disclosed in Papke (output shaft 220) is shown to be located within the hopper 204 in Fig. 5 annotated below. Although not explicitly shown in the figures, Papke states that output shaft 220 can have an agitator, such as a radially protruding pin or the like, to break up clumps of the material as the shaft 220 rotates, located at an elevation slightly above the discharge port 241 or floor 206 for example, which is located within the hopper 204 (Paragraph 0041). It is noted that a person having of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the stirrer being configured to agitate the material as the stirrer being configured to move with an irregular, rapid, or violent action (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The agitator disclosed in Papke would move with an irregular, rapid, or violent action in order to break up clumps of the material as the shaft 220 rotates.
PNG
media_image2.png
650
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, see Remarks, pg. 8-12, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Papke discloses all aspects of the claimed invention, except a metering wheel comprising a plurality of segments of equivalent volume separated by a plurality of walls extending radially away from a shaft of the metering wheel. Anderson teaches a mobile assembly (10, Fig. 1) comprising the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2) comprises a plurality of segments (segments of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) of equivalent volume (volume within each segment of disc 20 between blades 22, shown in Fig. 2) separated by a plurality of walls (22, Fig. 2) extending radially away from a shaft (62, Fig. 1) of the metering wheel (20, Fig. 2). Anderson provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these features to Papke’s mobile assembly because doing so provides Papke’s metering wheel to have an aerodynamic shape that maximizes the dispersion pattern, which disperses the material more efficiently (Anderson, Paragraph 0043).
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 O 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights