DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the spreading discs” is believed to be in error for --the at least two spreading discs--; “their axis” is believed to be in error for --an axis--; “feed spreading material” is believed to be in error for --feed the spreading material--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the direction of a first spreading disc” is believed to be in error for --a direction of a first spreading disc--; and “the direction of a second spreading disc” is believed to be in error for --a direction of a second spreading disc--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “their side” is believed to be in error for --a side--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a radius of the spreading discs” is believed to be in error for --the radius of the at least two spreading discs--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the filler piece is attached to a, in a travelling direction, front limit of the spreading chamber” is believed to be in error for --the filler piece is attached to a front limit of the spreading chamber in a travelling direction. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the surfaces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear from the claim whether “the surfaces” refer to the loading surface of claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends, or the surfaces of the filler piece of claim 2, upon which claim 9 does not depend, or some other surfaces of the spreading vehicle, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 repeats the same limitations as claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, including that the length of the filler piece along the center axis is greater than a radius of the spreading discs. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 7-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gushurst DE 102007063868 B3 in view of Hinrichs DE 102017120048 A1.
In regards to Independent Claim 1, Gushurst teaches a spreading vehicle (spreader 1 is a vehicle for spreading grit with two turning disks, and is designed to be mounted upon a vehicle in order to spread grit over an area, abstract and paragraph [0028] disclosing using a power takeoff PTO or tractor drive to supply mechanical power to the spreader), comprising: at least two spreading discs (disc 3 and 4), which are mounted at a rear end of the spreading vehicle (3 and 4 are mounted to the rear of 1 as shown in figure 1) and by way of which spreading material is captured from a loading surface of the spreading vehicle (grit loaded into container 7) and thrown out by the spreading vehicle (turning of 3 and 4 with throwing blades 5 and 6 for spreading grit), wherein the spreading discs on a top side comprise drivers (throwing blades 5 and 6 on 3 and 4 respectively in figure 1), by way of which the spreading material is captured (falling through funnels 8 and 9), which is continuously conducted or falls down onto the spreading discs from above (8 and 9 are above 3 and 4 as shown in figure 1), wherein the spreading discs rotate with a predetermined rotational speed about their axis of rotation (adjustable rate of rotation, abstract), wherein between the spreading discs at least partially a filler piece is arranged (18 and 19 act as a filler between 3 and 4 in figure 1), which is equipped in order to feed spreading material to the spreading discs (paragraph [0031] describes using 18 and 19 to constrain particles, which will also keep particles in the path of the turning blades 5 and 6 on each disk 3 and 4), wherein the filler piece has a center axis and extends in a direction of the center axis along a portion with a portion length between the spreading discs, and wherein the portion length is greater than a radius of the spreading discs (18 and 19 shown in figure 2 below with a center axis that has a greater length than the radius of each spreading disc). However, Gushurst does not teach that the disks are inclined relative to a horizontal direction. Hinrichs teaches using a two disc spreader where each spreader is tilted from the horizontal (discs 1 and 2 shown with tilt in figure 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to tilt the discs of Gushurst away from the horizontal, as taught by Hinrichs, in order to increase the throwing distance of the disks (Advantage in abstract, and increased distance shown in figures 6 and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
450
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Gushurst
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the center axis extends in the traveling direction of the spreading vehicle (center axis in figure 2 above shown in the same direction that the vehicle would travel).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the filler piece has a length along the center axis which is greater than a radius of the spreading discs (18 and 19 shown in figure 2 above with a center axis that has a greater length than the radius of each spreading disc as rejected in claim 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches a spreading chamber (chamber constrained by 8, 9, 2, 20 and 21), in which the spreading discs are at least partially received (as shown in figure 1), wherein the filler piece has a first attachment portion by way of which the filler piece is attached on a, in a travelling direction, front limit of the spreading chamber (first attachment in figure 1 below attaches to front limit 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
514
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Gushurst
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the first attachment portion is configured as a flat component arranged substantially vertically and transversely to the travelling direction, originating from which the surfaces extend (first attachment in figure 1 above is shown as vertical and transverse to a traveling direction that would be in the horizontal as shown in figure 2 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the filler piece extends in the direction of the center axis, originating from the first attachment portion, at least as far as over a position in which the spreading discs have the least distance to one another (18 and 19 extend rearward from first attachment in figure 1 above to aft of the region between 3 and 4 in figure 1 above).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the spreading vehicle is a universal spreader (spreader of figure 1 is capable of spreading any material that would fit through the hopper, where it is not disclosed or claimed what limits there are to materials that encompass universal).
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Gushurst in view of Hinrichs teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Gushurst further teaches the first attachment portion is configured as a metal sheet (18 and 19 are disclosed as sheet metal, and the first attachment is shown in figure 1 above as extending from 18, such that it would also be sheet metal, paragraph [0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-6, 11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 2, that the angle of inclination of the surfaces of the filler pieces are the same as the angle of inclination of the discs; prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 11, that the filler piece has a second attachment portion arranged opposite the first attachment portion, by way of which the filler piece is attached to an outlet side of the spreading chamber; and prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent claim 13, that the portion length of the filler piece is smaller than twice the radius of the spreading discs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270 - 1814. 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.
/STEVEN M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752