Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “a maximum width of the main body” should be changed to “the maximum width of the main body”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “each rotatable blade” should be changed to “ach of the plurality of rotatable blades”.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “extend linearly in a radial direction” should be changed to “extend linearly in the radial direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerroni (US4489896A).
Regarding claim 1, Cerroni discloses a shredding assembly (abstract; figs.1-2; and co.3 last 20 lines-col.5 line 11) comprising:
a fixed blade array (figs.1-2: (4)); and
a rotatable blade array (figs.1-2: (3)) configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade array about a rotational axis;
wherein the rotatable blade array comprises a plurality of rotatable blades (figs.1-2: (3)), and a rotatable blade of the plurality of rotatable blades comprises:
a main body (figs.1-2: the body of the blade (3)) extending in an outwardly radial direction with respect to the rotational axis;
a first cutting face (fig.2: the left face of the blade (3)) configured for cutting in a first rotational direction of the rotatable blade array; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: the right face of the blade (3)) configured for cutting in a second rotational direction of the rotatable blade array;
wherein the plurality of rotatable blades are interspersed with the fixed blade array such that, during rotation of the rotatable blade array, at least a portion of the radial extent of the main body passes through a gap between adjacent fixed blades of the fixed blade array (fig.2); and
wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than the radial extent of the main body (fig.2 and col.4 lines 2-14).
Cerroni does not disclose less than three quarters;
However, choosing the dimensions of the blade 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 shredding 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 dimensions of blade as desired, including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than three quarters of the radial extent of the main body; in order to obtain a blade with specific dimensions as desired.
Or;
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Cerroni to select the desired dimensions of the blade including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than three quarters of the radial extent of the main body; in order to prevent material from becoming wrapped or jammed about said shaft (Cerroni: claim 1), since it has held that " where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.4 IV.A.
Regarding claims 2-4, Cerroni does not discloses wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than seven tenths of the radial extent of the main body; wherein a minimum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than one half of the radial extent of the main body; and configured such that at least half of the radial extent of the main body passes through the gap during rotation of the rotatable blade array.
However, choosing the dimensions of the blade 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 shredding 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 dimensions of blade as desired, including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than seven tenths of the radial extent of the main body; wherein a minimum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than one half of the radial extent of the main body; and configured such that at least half of the radial extent of the main body passes through the gap during rotation of the rotatable blade array; in order to obtain a blade with specific dimensions as desired.
Or;
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Cerroni to select the desired dimensions of the blade including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than seven tenths of the radial extent of the main body; wherein a minimum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than one half of the radial extent of the main body; and configured such that at least half of the radial extent of the main body passes through the gap during rotation of the rotatable blade array; in order to prevent material from becoming wrapped or jammed about said shaft (Cerroni: claim 1), since it has held that " where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.4 IV.A.
Regarding claim 5, Cerroni discloses wherein the plurality of rotatable blades comprises a first rotatable blade and a second rotatable blade at an adjacent position along the rotational axis to the first rotatable blade, wherein an angular offset between the first rotatable blade and the second rotatable blade is at least 15 degrees (fig.1).
Regarding claim 6, Cerroni discloses wherein each rotatable blade comprises a fixing portion configured to engage with a shaft (figs.1-2: (2)), and wherein at least one of the first and second cutting faces extend linearly in a radial direction from the fixing portion to a tip portion of the blade extending between the first and second cutting faces (fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Cerroni discloses wherein a width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces tapers away from the rotational axis (fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, Cerroni discloses wherein the width of the main body decreases linearly with increased radial distance from the rotational axis (fig.1).
Regarding claim 9, Cerroni discloses further comprising a single shaft (figs.1-2: (2)), wherein the rotatable blade array is rotatably mounted on the single shaft (figs.1-2: (2)).
Regarding claim 14, Cerroni discloses wherein fixed blade array is an upper fixed blade array provided above and across the rotational axis or wherein the fixed blade array is a lower fixed blade array provided below the rotational axis (fig.2).
Claims 1, 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorscht (US20030230657A1) in view of Cerroni (US4489896A).
Regarding claim 1, Dorscht discloses a shredding assembly (abstract; figs.1-4; and paragraphs 0037-0043) comprising:
a fixed blade array (figs.1-4: (13)); and
a rotatable blade array (figs.1-2: (23)) configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade array about a rotational axis;
wherein the rotatable blade array comprises a plurality of rotatable blades ((figs.1-2: (23)), and a rotatable blade of the plurality of rotatable blades comprises:
a main body (fig.8: (24)) extending in an outwardly radial direction with respect to the rotational axis;
a first cutting face (figs.8-9: (26)) configured for cutting in a first rotational direction of the rotatable blade array; and
a second cutting face (figs.8-9: (27)) configured for cutting in a second rotational direction of the rotatable blade array;
wherein the plurality of rotatable blades are interspersed with the fixed blade array such that, during rotation of the rotatable blade array, at least a portion of the radial extent of the main body passes through a gap between adjacent fixed blades of the fixed blade array (figs.1-3 and paragraph 0047); and
Dorscht does not disclose wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than the radial extent of the main body.
Cerroni teaches a shredding assembly (abstract; figs.1-2; and co.3 last 20 lines-col.5 line 11) comprising:
a fixed blade array (figs.1-2: (4)); and
a rotatable blade array (figs.1-2: (3)) configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade array about a rotational axis;
wherein the rotatable blade array comprises a plurality of rotatable blades (figs.1-2: (3)), and a rotatable blade of the plurality of rotatable blades comprises:
a main body (figs.1-2: the body of the blade (3)) extending in an outwardly radial direction with respect to the rotational axis;
a first cutting face (fig.2: the left face of the blade (3)) configured for cutting in a first rotational direction of the rotatable blade array; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: the right face of the blade (3)) configured for cutting in a second rotational direction of the rotatable blade array;
wherein the plurality of rotatable blades are interspersed with the fixed blade array such that, during rotation of the rotatable blade array, at least a portion of the radial extent of the main body passes through a gap between adjacent fixed blades of the fixed blade array (fig.2); and
wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than the radial extent of the main body (fig.2 and col.4 lines 2-14).
Both of the prior arts of Dorscht and Cerroni are related to a shredding assembly;
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 apparatus of Dorscht to have a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than the radial extent of the main body as taught by Cerroni, 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)].
Dorscht in view Cerroni does not disclose less than three quarters;
However, choosing the dimensions of the blade 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 shredding 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 dimensions of blade as desired, including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than three quarters of the radial extent of the main body; in order to obtain a blade with specific dimensions as desired.
Or;
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Dorscht in view Cerroni to select the desired dimensions of the blade including wherein a maximum width of the main body between the first and second cutting faces is less than three quarters of the radial extent of the main body; in order to prevent material from becoming wrapped or jammed about said shaft (Cerroni: claim 1), since it has held that " where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.4 IV.A.
Regarding claims 10-13, Dorscht in view Cerroni does not disclose the limitations of claims 10-13;
However, the Applicant discloses the cutting surfaces configuration is not critical and may be defined by any suitable cutting means and any combination thereof, e.g. serrations, a sharp edge, a spiked arrangement or the like (Applicant’s sepecification page 18 lines 1-2);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the configuration of the rotatable blade to be at any configuration as desired, including 80% longer than long lateral, as a matter of routine engineering design choice; in order to meet a specific requirement of the shredding process as desired.
Regarding claim 15, Dorscht discloses wherein the fixed blade array (figs.1-4: (13)) is a first fixed blade array, and wherein the shredding assembly further comprises a second fixed blade array (figs.1-4: (16)) extending from a fixed body of the shredding assembly radially toward the rotational axis.
Therefore, the modification of Dorscht in view Cerroni teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Dorscht discloses wherein the first fixed blade array (figs.1-4: (13)) is an upper fixed blade array provided above and across the rotational axis, and wherein the second fixed blade array (figs.1-4: (16)) is a lower fixed blade array provided below the rotational axis.
Therefore, the modification of Dorscht in view Cerroni teaches the limitations of claim 16.
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
Prosecution Insights