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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schreiner U.S. Patent No. 10,179,709.
Claim 1, Schreiner teaches a system Fig. 1 comprising: an auger hopper 100 comprising a tube end at 16 and a tail end at 41 Fig. 2d opposite the tube end at 16, wherein said tube end 16 comprises an auger opening 16 for receiving a tube of an auger 12 into the hopper 100; and a plate 102 selected from at least two different plates of 102 Fig. 2e, each of said different plates of 102 being separately attachable to said hopper 100 at said auger opening 16 and wherein said different plates of 102 are configured to receive auger tubes 12 of different sizes, wherein, when said tube 12 of said auger 12 is received in said hopper 100, flighting of said auger 12 is accessible to material within said hopper 100 C3 L15-35.
Claim 2, Schreiner teaches said tail end at 41 Fig. 2d comprises a tail opening at 122 Fig. 2d for receiving a securing extension 103 of the auger 12, and wherein said securing extension 103 is secured at said tail opening at 41 Fig. 2d via 122 such that said tube of said auger 12 is secured in said hopper 100 C3 L60-67; C4 L1-5.
Claim 3, Schreiner teaches said tail opening at 122 comprises an opening in a detachable tail plate 118 attached to said hopper 100 at said tail end Fig. 2a.
Claim 4, Schreiner teaches a position of said tail plate 122 relative to a bottom of said hopper 100 is adjustable Fig. 2f.
Claim 7, Schreiner teaches a closeable cleanout opening via 126 at an underside of the hopper 100 Fig. 2e.
Claim 8, Schreiner teaches a skid plate 118 disposed at an underside of the tail end of the hopper 100 Fig. 2b.
Claim 9, Schreiner teaches said hopper 100 is formed of aluminum C3 L55-60.
Claim 10, Schreiner teaches wherein said skid plate 118 is formed of at least one of steel and steel alloy C3 L55-60.
Claim 11, Schreiner teaches a securing mechanism 126 at said tube end at 16 for securing said tube of said auger 12 in said hopper 100.
Claim 12, Schreiner teaches a kit of parts for assembly into a hopper system 100 Figs. 2a-g, the kit of parts comprising: a plurality of plates 122,118, each of said plates 122,118 being separately attachable to an auger hopper 100 at an auger opening of 16 of said auger hopper 100, wherein at least two of said plurality of plates 102,122,118 are configured to receive auger tubes 12 of different sizes; and mounting hardware 126 for attaching one of said plurality of plates 102 to said auger hopper 100 C1 L55-67; C2 L1-5.
Claim 13, Schreiner teaches said kit of parts is for retrofitting said auger hopper 100 C1 L55-67; C2 L1-5.
Claim 14, Schreiner teaches said auger hopper 100 is provided as part of said kit of parts (as known in mechanical assemblies) C1 L55-67; C2 L1-5.
Claim 15, Schreiner teaches a tail plate 122 for attachment to said hopper 100 at a tail opening at 122 of said hopper 100, wherein a position of said tail plate 122 with respect to a bottom of said hopper is adjustable Figs. 2a-g.
Claim 17, Schreiner teaches a kit of parts for assembly with a hopper system 100 Figs. 2a-g, the kit of parts comprising: at least one plate 122,102, said at least one plate 102 being attachable to an auger hopper 100 at an auger opening of 16 of said auger hopper 100, and said at least one plate 102 corresponding to an auger tube 12 of predetermined size (as known in mechanical assemblies) C1 L55-67; C2 L1-5.
Claim 18, Schreiner teaches said kit of parts further comprises mounting hardware 126 for attaching said at least one plate 102 to said auger hopper 100.
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(s) 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiner U.S. Patent No. 10,179,709.
Claims 5 and 16, Schreiner teaches said auger tube 12 has a size, but does not specify that is one of: 8-inch diameter; 10-inch diameter; 12-inch diameter; 13-inch diameter; 6-inch outer diameter U-trough; 8-inch outer diameter U-trough; 10-inch outer diameter U-trough; 12-inch outer diameter U-trough; and 13-inch outer diameter U-trough Figs. 2a-g. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to specify the dimensions of the auger diameter and to use the hopper with various auger sizes to accommodate the size need for production.
In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.).
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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schreiner U.S. Patent No. 10,179,709 in view of Stumpe U.S. Patent No. 9,137,950.
Claim 6, Schreiner teaches plate 122 in contact with the auger 12, but does not teach as teaches Stumpe teaches said plate 130 comprises a sealing strip around a receiving edge of said plate 130, such that said tube of said auger 18 contacts said sealing strip of 130 when said tube of said auger 18 is received in said auger opening C10 L5-40. ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the hopper structure disclosed in Schreiner with the seal strip taught in Stumpe with a reasonable expectation of success because
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVEL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-2362. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8am-6pm.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/KAVEL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
KS