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 May 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 22-23, 26-28 and 35 have been amended. Claims 16-35 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(d) rejections and some of the 112(b) rejections and objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 5th, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character #124 in Fig. 1
Reference character #154 in Figs. 2-3 and 5.
Reference character #410 in Fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 33-34 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.
Claims 33-34 recite “configured to move the chute…on moving the screen support frame”, wherein the phrase “on moving” is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 16-27 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronson et al. (US 4598875) in view of Zimmerman (US 5551776).
Regarding claim 16, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 10-25), comprising:
a screen support frame (Fig. 2 see frame of #50) configured to receive and support a multideck screen (Fig. 2 #50) that comprises a plurality of stacked screen decks (Fig. 6 #50A, 50B, 50C) configured to output different size fractions at a discharge end of the screen decks (Fig. 6 see different size fractions at lower end of #50A, 50B, 50C);
a dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) comprising a reception configured to receive from the multideck screen, when installed, the output different size fractions (Fig. 6 #45 configured to receive different size fractions from #50A, 50B, 50C) and further comprising a chute (Fig. 6 #70, 72) configured to guide at least one of the different size fractions to a chute output position (Col. 7 line 58-Col. 8 line 7); and
a platform frame (Fig. 1 #16) configured to movably support the screen support frame (Fig. 2 #16 configured to movably support frame of #50) so that the screen support frame and the multideck screen are movable between an elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position) and to a lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position);
wherein the chute output position laterally resides outside a lateral footprint bordered by the platform frame (Fig. 1 see output of #70, 72 residing outside a lateral footprint bordered by #16); and
wherein the chute is configured to be in a chute transport state (Fig. 4 see #70, 72 in chute transport state) and a chute operating state (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 in chute operating state) so that at least a portion of a weight of the chute is carried by the dividing hopper in and between these states (Figs. 4, 6 portion of weight of #70, 72 is carried by #45).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching wherein the chute is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state. Bronson et al. (US 4598875) states that the discharge chutes extend laterally of the trailer chassis so as to be able to discharge onto corresponding conveyor belts, which convey the material deposited thereon to corresponding stockpiles or other appropriate receiving devices (Col. 5 lines 17-26).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state (Col. 4 lines 53-60).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that it would be desirable to provide a discharge chute apparatus that provides a telescopible operation to provide a substantially infinite variation in the position at which the material is discharged, up to the maximum length of the discharge chute apparatus (Col. 1 lines 56-61), while enabling the entire discharge chute apparatus to be collapsed in a transport position confined within the lateral limits of a truck (Col. 2 lines 1-5). Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is configured to be movable between a chute transport state and a chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide a chute which conveys the material to the corresponding stockpiles, wherein the chute may be positioned in different operative positions and forms a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #70, 72) is further configured to be connected to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 connected “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) in both the chute transport state and the chute operating state (Fig. 4 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute transport state, Fig. 6 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute operating state).
Regarding claim 18, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute is telescopically movable.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is telescopically movable (Col. 4 lines 53-66).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is telescopically movable as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 19, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute comprises two parts.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) comprises two parts (Fig. 6 #22, 23).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute comprises two parts as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 20, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 19, wherein the chute comprises a fixed part attached to the dividing hopper and a movable part that is telescopically movable along the fixed part.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) comprises a fixed part (Fig. 6 #22) attached to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 #22 attached to #40, Col. 5 line 60-Col. 6 line 10) and a movable part (Fig. 6 #23) that is telescopically movable along the fixed part (Col. 5 lines 3-10).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute comprises a fixed part attached to the dividing hopper and a movable part that is telescopically movable along the fixed part as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 21, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the chute is lockable to the operating state.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 9 #20) is lockable to the operating state (Fig. 9 see #39 “clamp” holding #35 “cable” in a fixed location; Col. 5 lines 21-25).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is lockable to the operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 22, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising movement of the screen support frame to the lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state upon movement of the screen support frame to the lowered transport position.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute retraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 43-53) upon movement of the mixing auger to the lowered transport position (Col. 4 lines 39-52, Fig. 1 see lowered transport position shown by dotted line of #18).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state upon movement of the screen support frame to the lowered transport position as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration when the system is transported.
Regarding claim 23, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising movement of the screen support frame to the elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state upon movement of the screen support frame to the elevated operating position.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute extraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 25-30) upon movement of the mixing auger to the elevated operating position (Col. 4 lines 39-52, Fig. 1 see elevated operating position of #18 shown by solid line).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state upon movement of the screen support frame to the elevated operating position as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) n order to provide a chute which conveys the material to the corresponding stockpiles, wherein the chute may be positioned in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 24, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising two or more of the chutes (Fig. 6 #70, 72).
Regarding claim 25, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, wherein the dividing hopper is supported by the screen support frame (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45 supported by frame of #50).
Regarding claim 26, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a towing base (Fig. 5 #12) for towable movement of the transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 8 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 27, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a support leg base (Fig. 2 #20) for fixed installation of the transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 3 lines 27-34).
Regarding claim 29, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a crusher (Fig. 2 #40).
Regarding claim 30, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches a method for adapting a mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 10-25) between operating and transport configurations (Col. 3 lines 27-36), comprising:
receiving and supporting by a screen support frame (Fig. 2 see frame of #50) a multideck screen (Fig. 2 #50) that comprises a plurality of stacked screen decks (Fig. 6 #50A, 50B, 50C) configured to output different size fractions at a discharge end of the screen decks (Fig. 6 see different size fractions at lower end of #50A, 50B, 50C);
receiving by a dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) different size fractions from the multideck screen (Fig. 6 #45 configured to receive different size fractions from #50A, 50B, 50C) and guiding by a chute (Fig. 6 #70, 72) the different size fractions to a chute output position (Col. 7 line 58-Col. 8 line 7);
movably supporting by a platform frame (Fig. 1 #16) the screen support frame (Fig. 2 #16 configured to movably support frame of #50) so that the screen support frame and the multideck screen are movable between an elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position) and a lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position);
wherein the chute output position laterally resides outside a lateral footprint bordered by the platform frame (Fig. 1 see output of #70, 72 residing outside a lateral footprint bordered by #16); and
providing the chute in a chute transport state (Fig. 4 see #70, 72 in chute transport state) and a chute operating state (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 in chute operating state)so that at least a portion of a weight of the chute is carried by the dividing hopper in and between these states (Figs. 4, 6 portion of weight of #70, 72 is carried by #45).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching providing movement of the chute between a chute transport state and a chute operating state. Bronson et al. (US 4598875) states that the discharge chutes extend laterally of the trailer chassis so as to be able to discharge onto corresponding conveyor belts, which convey the material deposited thereon to corresponding stockpiles or other appropriate receiving devices (Col. 5 lines 17-26).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a method for adapting a mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) comprising providing movement of the chute (Fig. 2 #20) between a chute transport state and a chute operating state (Col. 4 lines 53-60).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that it would be desirable to provide a discharge chute apparatus that provides a telescopible operation to provide a substantially infinite variation in the position at which the material is discharged, up to the maximum length of the discharge chute apparatus (Col. 1 lines 56-61), while enabling the entire discharge chute apparatus to be collapsed in a transport position confined within the lateral limits of a truck (Col. 2 lines 1-5). Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include providing movement of the chute between a chute transport state and a chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide a chute which conveys the material to the corresponding stockpiles, wherein the chute may be positioned in different operative positions and forms a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 31, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the method of claim 30, further comprising maintaining the chute connected to the dividing hopper (Fig. 6 see #70, 72 connected “inlet chute” #45 and parallel chutes below #45) in both the chute transport state and the chute operating state (Fig. 4 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute transport state, Fig. 6 see #45 connected to #70, 72 in chute operating state).
Regarding claim 32, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 17, wherein the chute is telescopically movable.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) wherein the chute (Fig. 2 #20) is telescopically movable (Col. 4 lines 53-66).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include wherein the chute is telescopically movable as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide a chute which conveys the material to the corresponding stockpiles, wherein the chute may be positioned in different operative positions and forms a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 33, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 17, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the lowered transport position (Fig. 4 see #50 in lowered transfer position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state on moving the screen support frame to the lowered transport position.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute retraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 43-53) on moving the mixing auger to the lowered transport position (Col. 4 lines 39-52, Fig. 1 see lowered transport position shown by dotted line of #18).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute retraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute operating state to the chute transport state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide the chute in different operative positions and to form a compact transport configuration when the system is transported.
Regarding claim 34, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 18, further comprising moving the screen support frame to the elevated operating position (Fig. 2 see #50 in elevated operating position).
Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state on moving the screen support frame to the elevated operating position.
Zimmerman (US 5551776) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-7) further comprising a chute extraction mechanism (Fig. 6 #26) configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state (Col. 5 lines 3-10, 25-30) on moving of the mixing auger to the elevated operating position (Col. 4 lines 39-52, Fig. 1 see elevated operating position of #18 shown by solid line).
Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that the telescopic chute is extensible between a collapsed transport position to extended operative positions, and the three chute sections nest to form a compact transport configuration having a minimum overall length slightly longer than the length of the first chute section (Col. 4 lines 55-66).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a chute extraction mechanism configured to move the chute from the chute transport state to the chute operating state as taught by Zimmerman (US 5551776) in order to provide a chute which conveys the material to the corresponding stockpiles, wherein the chute may be positioned in different operative positions and forms a compact transport configuration.
Regarding claim 35, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) teaches the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 17, further comprising two or more of the chutes (Fig. 6 #70, 72).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bronson et al. (US 4598875) in view of Zimmerman (US 5551776) and further in view of Andersen (US 9808834).
Regarding claim 28, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) lacks teaching the transportable mineral material processing system of claim 16, further comprising a track base for self-propelling movement of the transportable mineral material processing system.
Andersen (US 9808834) teaches a transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 1 lines 5-10) further comprising a track base (Fig. 3 #34) for self-propelling movement of the transportable mineral material processing system (Col. 9 lines 20-29).
Andersen (US 9808834) explains that in general, mobile screening apparatus include a centrally located power plant that is used to drive the driving tracks, vibratory screen motors, or other equipment (Col. 1 lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bronson et al. (US 4598875) to include a track base for self-propelling movement of the transportable mineral material processing system as taught by Andersen (US 9808834) in order to transport the transportable screening system by a centrally located power source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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, Bronson et al. (US 4598875) states that the discharge chutes extend laterally of the trailer chassis so as to be able to discharge onto corresponding conveyor belts, which convey the material deposited thereon to corresponding stockpiles or other appropriate receiving devices (Col. 5 lines 17-26). Zimmerman (US 5551776) explains that it would be desirable to provide a discharge chute apparatus that provides a telescopible operation to provide a substantially infinite variation in the position at which the material is discharged, up to the maximum length of the discharge chute apparatus (Col. 1 lines 56-61), while enabling the entire discharge chute apparatus to be collapsed in a transport position confined within the lateral limits of a truck (Col. 2 lines 1-5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits of providing a discharge chute as taught by Zimmerman, which may convey the material directly to corresponding stockpiles or other appropriate devices without requiring additional conveyor belts mounted on the ground and positioned outside of the transportable mineral material processing system.
In response to applicant's argument that the discharge chute taught by Zimmerman is a highly specialized mechanism incompatible with Bonson’s system, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that Zimmerman is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the mobile concrete production machine with a telescoping discharge chute is relevant to the mobile material processing and discharging of material outwardly of the processing equipment as claimed herein.
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 Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights