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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “wherein fixed blade array is an upper fixed blade array” should be changed to “wherein a fixed blade array is an upper fixed blade array”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashi (JP2018130067A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Takashi discloses a shredding assembly (paragraphs 0001 and 0033-0049) comprising:
a fixed blade array (fig.2: (19)); and
a rotatable blade array (fig.2: (22)) configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade array about a rotational axis;
wherein the rotatable blade array comprises a plurality of rotatable blades (fig.2: (22)), and a rotatable blade of the plurality of rotatable blades comprises:
a main body (fig.2: the body of the blade (22)) extending in an outwardly radial direction with respect to the rotational axis;
a first cutting face (fig.2: the left (22c)) configured for cutting in a first rotational direction of the rotatable blade array; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: the right (22c)) 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
wherein a fixed blade (fig.2: (19)) of the fixed blade array comprises:
a first cutting face (fig.2: left (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: right (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction.
Takashi 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 Takashi 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; 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.
Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cerroni (US4489896A) in view of Takashi (JP2018130067A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
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.
Cerroni does not disclose wherein a fixed blade of the fixed blade array comprises: a first cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and a second cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction.
Takashi teaches a shredding assembly (paragraphs 0001 and 0033-0049) comprising:
a fixed blade (fig.2: (19)) of the fixed blade array comprises:
a first cutting face (fig.2: left (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: right (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction.
Both of the prior arts of Cerroni and Takashi 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 fixed blade of Cerroni to have a first cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and a second cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction as taught by Takashi, 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 claims 2-4, Cerroni view of Takashi 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 view of Takashi 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).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 5.
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).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 6.
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).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Cerroni discloses wherein the width of the main body decreases linearly with increased radial distance from the rotational axis (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 8.
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)).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 9.
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).
Therefore, the modification of Cerroni view of Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Claims 1, 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorscht (US20030230657A1) in view of Takashi (JP2018130067A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
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).
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; and wherein a fixed blade of the fixed blade array comprises: a first cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and a second cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction.
Takashi teaches a shredding assembly (paragraphs 0001 and 0033-0049) comprising:
a fixed blade array (fig.2: (19)); and
a rotatable blade array (fig.2: (22)) configured to rotate relative to the fixed blade array about a rotational axis;
wherein the rotatable blade array comprises a plurality of rotatable blades (fig.2: (22)), and a rotatable blade of the plurality of rotatable blades comprises:
a main body (fig.2: the body of the blade (22)) extending in an outwardly radial direction with respect to the rotational axis;
a first cutting face (fig.2: the left (22c)) configured for cutting in a first rotational direction of the rotatable blade array; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: the right (22c)) 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
wherein a fixed blade (fig.2: (19)) of the fixed blade array comprises:
a first cutting face (fig.2: left (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and
a second cutting face (fig.2: right (19c)) configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction.
Both of the prior arts of Dorscht and Takashi 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 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; and wherein a fixed blade of the fixed blade array comprises: a first cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a first rotational direction; and a second cutting face configured for cutting waste moving in a second rotational direction as taught by Takashi, 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 Takashi 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 Takashi 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; 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 Takashi 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 specification 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 Takashi 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 Takashi teaches the limitations of claim 16.
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
Prosecution Insights