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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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 1-3 and 5-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction of rotation" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3 and 5-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, in line 2 the phrase “using the wear element according to claim 1 for protecting the milling means” render the claim indefinite because claim 1 is drawing to a wear element for an agitator mill, and
Claim 10 merely recites “using” without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (MPEP 2173.05(q)).
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Francesco (EP3556467A1) in view of Lutz (US4304494A).
Regarding claim 1, Francesco discloses a wear element (figs.8-9: (28); and paragraphs 0070-0076) for an agitator mill comprising a plate-shaped cuboid base body (paragraph 0071),
wherein the wear element is attached to a milling means of the agitator mill (figs.8-9), and
wherein the cuboid base body comprises long faces (fig.9: the long face of the element (28) in the x direction of the element (10)) and short faces (fig.9: the short face of the element (28) in the y direction of the element (10)) , with the long faces of the cuboid base body in the x-direction of a Cartesian coordinate system and the short faces of the cuboid base body in the y- and z-directions of the Cartesian coordinate system,
wherein the cuboid base body has a front long face configured to face in the direction of rotation of an agitator mill shaft of the agitator mill with at least one end of the front long face further configured to have a first inclined surface area (fig.9: see the chamfer of the element (28)),
Francesco does not disclose wherein the first inclined surface area has an angle of inclination and is configured as
- a protrusion with respect to the cuboid base body, or
- a protrusion in combination with a recess with respect to the cuboid base body;
Lutz teaches a wear element (fig.2: (75)) comprising wan inclined surface area (fig.5: (81)) has an angle of inclination and is configured as a protrusion with respect to a cuboid base body (fig.2).
Both of the prior arts of Francesco and Lutz are related to a wear element;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first inclined surface area of the wear element of Francesco to have an angle of inclination and is configured as a protrusion with respect to the cuboid base body as taught by Lutz, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Regarding claim 2, Francesco discloses wherein the wear element is detachable (figs.8-9: (29)).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Francesco discloses wherein the wear element has fastening means (figs.8-9: (29)) on a back long face of the wear element.
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Lutz teaches wherein the angle of inclination of the first inclined surface area is directed upwards or downwards with respect to the y-direction of the wear element (figs.2 and 5).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Lutz teaches wherein the front long face has a second inclined surface area with a second angle of inclination (fig.5:(82)), wherein the second angle of inclination of the second inclined surface area is directed upwards or downwards with respect to the y-direction of the wear element in a direction with respect to the y-direction of the wear element is opposite that of the first inclined surface area (fig.5).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Francesco discloses a method of using the wear element according to claim 1 for protecting the milling means, wherein the milling means are used in agitator bead mill for milling calcium carbonate slurries with milling aids, said method comprising a step of fastening the wear element to the milling means, wherein the milling aids are selected from the groups consisting of glass beads, metal beads, steel beads, ceramic beads and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0008).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, Francesco discloses an agitator mill comprising the milling means and the wear element according to claim 1 attached to the milling means (figs.8-9).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Francesco disc wherein the fastening means are selected from the group consisting of screws, screw-holes and protrusions (paragraph 0071).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Francesco disc wherein the fastening means are two screw-holes or two pairs of screw-holes (figs.8-9).
Therefore, the modification of Francesco in view of Lutz teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claims 6-7, and 17-20, Francesco in view of Lutz does not disclose the limitations of claims 6-7 and 17-20;
However, choosing the relative dimensions of the wear element is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the milling and specific requirements of the milling 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 relative dimensions the wear element as desired in as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claims 9 and 11-13 Francesco in view of Lutz does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 9 and 11-13.
However, The steps of using kit for improving and repairing is the known routine procedure that used in the process of maintenance any industrial processing machine and does not make any contribution over any prior arts and inherent disclosed by the prior arts of Francesco (if the part become smaller due the to the wear during the operation, then verification and maintains of the part and their possible replacement and obviously one having ordinary skill in art will use repairing kit having marking means and fastening means to fix or replace the worn part in order to prevent decreased efficiency of the machine).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725