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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 3-7 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein…the chips loaded via the hopper may include coarse particles” in lines 6-10. However, it is noted that the chips are the workpiece being processed by the claimed crusher, and are thus not part of the claimed invention itself. Therefore, it is improper to further limit them with a “wherein” statement, as said statement does not provide any additional structural or functional limitations of the claimed crusher. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the interaction of the blades and the fixed teeth” in lines 27-28 does not have antecedent basis in the claim.
Finally regarding Claim 1, the scope of the limitation “when the segments are in the cleaning position, an intermediate space is provided between the base plate and the cover plate” in lines 35-37 is unclear. An intermediate space between the base plate and the cover plate in which the segments of the fine breaking mechanism are arranged is already recited in lines 19-22. Is the intermediate space recited in lines 35-37 meant to be the same intermediate space as that recited in lines 19-22, or is this a separate space which is provided only when the segments are in the cleaning position? For examination purposes, the former interpretation will be used.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the direction of the cutter head” does not have antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 6 recites in line 15 the broad recitation “at least 100 mm”, and then “in particular 200 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon Claim 1.
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 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spyra (US 6,669,123, provided by Applicant) in view of Doppstadt et al., hereinafter Doppstadt (US 10,632,474).
Regarding Claim 1, Spyra discloses (Figures 1-2) a crusher for comminuting chips col. 1 lns 5-6) comprising a hopper (hopper 11) for loading the chips (cuttings 22), a fine breaking mechanism (fine breaking mechanism 20) for breaking the chips into fine chips (col. 2 ln 67 – col. 3 ln 1), and a chip discharge (discharge chute 23), wherein the hopper is arranged above the fine breaking mechanism in the vertical direction and the fine breaking mechanism is arranged above the chip discharge in the vertical direction (clearly seen in Figure 1), the chips loaded via the hopper may include coarse particles (coarse pieces 24; col. 3 lns 6-7), the fine breaking mechanism is provided with fixed external teeth (stationary teeth 18) and a rotary inner cutter head with blades (rotating blade head 16), the fixed teeth of the fine breaking mechanism are arranged on at least two segments (segments 29 and 30) movable such that they can be moved away from the cutter head when a coarse particle enters the fine breaking mechanism so the coarse particle can pass through the fine breaking mechanism (col. 3 lns 13-17), the segments of the fine breaking mechanism are arranged in an intermediate space between a base plate and a cover plate arranged in the vertical direction above the base plate (see Annotated Figure 1 below), the cutter head of the fine breaking mechanism is configured and arranged in an operating position of the segments with respect to the fixed teeth such that chips fed via the hopper to the fine breaking mechanism when the cutter head is rotating are broken into fine chips through the interaction of the blades and the fixed teeth (col. 2 ln 59 – col. 3 ln 1: cuttings 22 fed via hopper 11 to fine breaking mechanism 20 are processed into short cuttings, i.e. fine chips, via the interaction of blade head 16 and stationary teeth 18 when the segments 29/30 are in an operating position), and the chip discharge is configured and arranged so that the fine chips leave the crusher from the fine breaking mechanism via the chip discharge (col. 3 lns 2-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Spyra Annotated Figure 1
Spyra does not disclose that the segments of the fine breaking mechanism are swivelably arranged around a vertical pivot axis and are configured to assume a cleaning position in addition to the operating position. In a related field of endeavor, Doppstadt teaches (Figure 1A) a crusher comprising a fine breaking mechanism provided with fixed external teeth (counter blades 3) arranged on a movable segment (base comb II) and a rotary inner cutter head (disintegrating roller 1) with blades (disintegrating tools 2), characterized in that the segment of the fine breaking mechanism is swivelably arranged around a pivot axis (axle A; col. 4 lns 33-37) and is configured to assume a cleaning position in addition to an operating position (col. 3 lns 7-14). Easy access to the rotary inner cutter head for cleaning is advantageous because if too much material is built up on the cutter head, the efficiency of the crusher is negatively affected (col. 3 lns 7-14). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crusher disclosed by Spyra such that the segments of the fine breaking mechanism are swivelably arranged around a pivot axis and are configured to assume a cleaning position in addition to the operating position, as taught by Doppstadt, in order to allow easy access to the rotary cutter head for cleaning so that excessive buildup of material can be prevented.
Examiner note: when the combination of Spyra and Doppstadt is made, the segments 29/30 of Spyra are each provided with the swiveling device 5 and axle A of Doppstadt; as axle A is parallel to the rotation axis of disintegrating roller 1, when this combination is made, the pivot axis will be a vertical pivot axis. Further, when the modified segments are in the cleaning position, an intermediate space is provided between the base plate and the cover plate (see Spyra Annotated Figure 1 above) allowing access in the horizontal direction to the rotating blade head 16.
Regarding Claim 3, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Spyra and Doppstadt, Doppstadt teaches (Figure 1A) one end of each of the segments (base comb II) of the fine breaking mechanism opposite the respective pivot axis (axle A) is pressed in the direction of the cutter head (disintegrating roller 1) of the fine breaking mechanism by an energy storage device (hydraulic cylinder 50).
Regarding Claim 4, when Spyra is modified by Doppstadt, the energy storage devices (Doppstadt Figure 1A, hydraulic cylinder 50) are arranged in the intermediate space between the base plate and the cover plate (see Spyra Annotated Figure 1 above) and can be removed from the intermediate space in the horizontal direction (based on the orientation of segments 29/30 in the intermediate space indicated in Spyra Annotated Figure 1 above, when Doppstadt’s swiveling device 5 is added to each segment, the hydraulic cylinders 50 will be able to be removed from the intermediate space in the horizontal direction).
Regarding Claim 5, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Spyra and Doppstadt, Doppstadt teaches (Figure 1A) the energy storage devices (hydraulic cylinder 50) can be fixed in place in the intermediate space by holders (housing axle 52) fixed to the outside of the crusher (col. 4 lns 37-38: the frame of the disintegrating device is outside the crusher).
Regarding Claim 7, Spyra discloses (Figure 1) a coarse breaking mechanism with a rotatable tearing arm (tearing arm 13) for breaking chips (cuttings 22; col. 2 lns 62-66) is arranged between the hopper (hopper 11) and the fine breaking mechanism (fine breaking mechanism 20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spyra in view of Doppstadt as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (CN 113798038). For text citations of Cao, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 6, Spyra discloses (Figure 1) the chip discharge (discharge chute 23) is provided with a discharge surface (upper surface of discharge chute 23), which is configured and arranged such that the fine chips and coarse particles leaving the fine breaking mechanism (fine breaking mechanism 20) fall onto the discharge surface and are conveyed out of the crusher (col. 3 lns 2-5).
Spyra is silent to a scraper arranged between the fine breaking mechanism and the chip discharge, although the Examiner notes that Figure 1 appears to show the same structure which is labeled with reference numerals 31/32 (scraper/scraper arm) in the instant application, though in Spyra’s Figure 1 it is not labeled. Nevertheless, in a related field of endeavor, Cao teaches (Figure 1) a crusher comprising a fine breaking mechanism (crushing cylinders 16), a discharge (discharge hole 48), and a scraper (scraper 57) comprising at least one rotatable scraper arm (slide rod 56; [0030] lns 19-20: slide rod 56 carrying scraper 57 rotates with crushing sleeve 52) for moving the crushed material after leaving the fine breaking mechanism to the discharge ([0030] lns 20-21: the material is scraped off of the side wall so that it may be directed to the discharge hole 48) is arranged between the fine breaking mechanism and the discharge. Including a scraper of this sort is advantageous because it helps prevent adhesion of the crushed material to the side walls of the device underneath the fine breaking mechanism ([0030] lns 20-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the crusher disclosed by Spyra and modified by Doppstadt such that a scraper comprising at least one rotatable scraper arm for moving the fine chips after leaving the fine breaking mechanism to the discharge surface of the chip discharge is arranged between the fine breaking mechanism and the chip discharge, as taught by Cao, in order to prevent adhesion of fine chips to the inner walls of the crusher underneath the fine breaking mechanism.
Further regarding Claim 6, the combination of Spyra, Doppstadt, and Cao is silent to a minimum distance of the discharge surface from the scraper in the vertical direction. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of this particular minimum distance that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the crusher such that the entire discharge surface of the chip discharge is at a minimum distance from the scraper in the vertical direction of at least 100 mm, in particular 200 mm, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Doppstadt et al. (US 2015/0217299), Karlsson et al. (US 7,600,708), Kim (KR 101812141), Yoshida (JP 2001030209), and Willibald (EP 2374544) all disclose a crusher having a rotary inner cutter and fixed external teeth mounted on movable segments, wherein the segments are swivelably arranged around a pivot axis and are configured to assume a cleaning position in addition to an operating position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725