DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 3 and 12, line 3, the narrative recitations “its electric motor” lead to issues with antecedent basis and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 8-18 are 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.
I- Claim 8, line 11, is indefinite because “the fracturing sand hopper” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Semenenko 4,470,524.
Semenenko discloses a bridge breaker array as seen in Figure 1, which comprises a prism-shaped component (2) disposed into a hopper (4); an internal vibrator (7) affixed to a bottom surface of the prism-shaped component, wherein the internal vibrator is positioned above a discharge gate (13) of the hopper; and a plurality of vibration enhancers (11) between the prism-shaped component and the hopper as seen in Figure 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenenko 4,470,524 in view of Dieringer et al. 4,790,455.
Semenenko has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that wherein alternating current (AC) is applied to the internal vibrator, wherein the internal vibrator converts electrical energy into mechanical energy via its electric motor. Dieringer et al. teach the use of an alternating current (AC) is applied to an internal vibrator (53), wherein the internal vibrator converts electrical energy into mechanical energy via its electric motor (col. 4, ll. 13-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to utilize the teaching of Dieringer et al. onto Semenenko’s vibrator to have an electric motor as taught by Dieringer et al. in (col. 4, ll. 13-44), in order to provide an automatic level control vibrator.
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenenko 4,470,524 in view of Doty 3,845,857.
Semenenko has taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the vibration enhancer is a nylon bushing. Doty teaches the use of a nylon bushing instead of other vibration enhancer (col. 3, ll. 35-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to substitute Semenenko’s vibration enhancer with Doty’ nylon bushing, in order to provide a vibration enhancer that is resistant to rust.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 8-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
14. Claims 2, 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 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, Paul R. Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights