OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0248], line 7: replace “3034” with –3043--.
In [0267], line 7: replace “3081” with –3061--.
Correction is required.
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) that discloses a mixing system comprising the recited mixer housing 120 with a longitudinal axis that extends through the front wall 124 and a discharge end 128 of the mixer housing; an inlet 122 for introducing material into the mixer housing, the inlet being disposed toward the front wall 124 of the mixer housing; a plurality of roller assemblies disposed within the mixer housing, each roller assembly including a rotatable shaft within 150 (Figs. 1-4) that extends between supporting walls of the housing 120; rollers 140 connected to and surrounding a rotatable shaft with ends supported by housing walls; a discharge 126 for discharging material from the mixer housing 120, the discharge being disposed toward the discharge end 128 of the mixer housing 120; protrusion geometries 140 on the rollers forming a wave geometry that is complementary to an adjacent roller 140 of an adjacent roller assembly; wherein each roller of the plurality of roller assemblies includes a plurality of hollow body components 641, each of the plurality of hollow body components coupled to one another about the rotatable shaft as seen in the embodiment of Figure 6; or wherein each roller of the plurality of roller assemblies includes a solitary body including an aperture within 150 for receiving the rotatable shaft.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1).
WHITE et al. does not disclose the recited materials of claim 8. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the rollers of WHITE et al. from any suitable material, including the materials recited in claim 8, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416; Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
It is observed that artisans must be presumed to know something about the art apart from what the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962)). Moreover, skill is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, it is concluded that the selection of a well-known material in the art for the rollers such as the materials of claim 8 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art, if for no other reason than to achieve the advantage of using a more modern material or a lower cost or more easily fabricated material.
This exemplifies the Supreme Court's analysis in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 [82 USPQ2d 1385] (2007). “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417. As further emphasis on the substitution of one material for another, there is the venerable case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 248 (1851), cited approvingly in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., supra, 550 U.S. at 406, 415, which denied patentability to an invention consisting of the substitution of a clay or porcelain knob for a metallic or wood knob in a doorknob (the doorknob itself, as distinct from the knob on the end of it, being an assemblage of knob, shank, and spindle). Other substitution cases in which patentability was denied on grounds of obviousness include Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535–38 [218 USPQ 871] (Fed. Cir. 1983); Brunswick Corp. v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 689 F.2d 740, 749-50 [216 USPQ 1] (7th Cir. 1982), and Lyle/Carlstrom Associates, Inc. v. Manhattan Store Interiors, Inc., 635 F.Supp. 1371, 1381-83 [230 USPQ 278] (E.D.N.Y. 1986), aff'd, 824 F.2d 977 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Among the inventions that the law deems obvious are those modest, routine, everyday, incremental improvements of an existing product or process that confer commercial value (otherwise they would not be undertaken) but do not involve sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection. This class of inventions is well illustrated by efforts at routine experimentation with different standard grades of a material used in a product—standard in the sense that their properties, composition, and method of creation are well known, making successful results of the experimentation predictable. Ritchie v. Vast Resources Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, it is well settled that a predictable substitution of one material for another is well within the grasp of 35 U.S.C 103(a) and common sense. A rejection to overcome an obviousness rejection will not be withdrawn when the allegedly missing teaching of the rejection would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, supra. Choosing an appropriate material for a specific application or structural member, such as the rollers of WHITE et al., can unquestionably be determined by a PHOSITA by innate common sense, common knowledge generally, or the common knowledge in the relevant art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of HOLLEY (US 4881887).
WHITE et al. discloses the mixer housing including an outer support structure for supporting the rollers for rotation within the housing 120 but does not disclose an inner liner sheet positioned between the outer support structure and the roller of the plurality of roller assemblies.
HOLLEY discloses a mixer housing with an outer support structure 3 and an inner liner sheet 4 positioned between the outer support structure 3 and the rotatable members 2 disposed within the mixer housing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the housing of WHITE et al. with an inner liner sheet as taught by HOLLEY for the purpose of preventing the substance being processed in the housing from adhering to the outer support structure (col. 2, lines 6-32).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of HIRAGURI ET AL. (US 6196957).
WHITE et al. does not disclose the filler material within the rollers.
HIRAGURI et al. discloses rollers in FIGS. 1 and 2 showing a roller constructed with a metal conduit 1 and an outer tube 7 made of thermally resistant metal. The outer tube 7 is firmly attached to the metal conduit 1 by flanges 3, 4 located at opposite ends of the outer tube 7 and by one or more metallic filler support rings 40 fixed peripherally between the flanges 3, 4. FIG. 3 shows a roller with a thermal insulating material 50, as of a fibrous ceramic is filled (as a filler) in a space defined between the metal conduit 1 and the outer tube 7 of thermally resistant metal.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the rollers of WHITE et al. with a filler therein as taught by HIRAGURI et al. for the purposes of reinforcing the rollers via the support rings (40) embodiment of Figs. 1-2 or to insulate the roller to gain improved thermal insulation of the roll and stabilized support of the outer portion of the roller (col. 1, lines 21-36 and lines 57-59).
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of KEELEY et al. (US 2022/0412044 A1).
WHITE discloses the recited subject matter of the mixing system as outlined above but does not disclose the mobile vacuum features.
KEELEY et al. ’044 discloses a hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 for excavating earthen material is shown in FIG. 1. The hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 is used to excavate a site by use of a jet of high pressure fluid solution expelled through a wand 132. The cut earthen material and water are removed by a vacuum system 114 (FIG. 2A) and discharged into a collection vessel 142. The hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 includes a wheeled chassis 102 which supports the various components (e.g., vacuum system 114, collection tank 142, cyclones 146) with wheels 111 connected to the chassis 102 to transport the apparatus 100. The apparatus 100 may be a self-propelled truck 102 with said chassis having a dedicated motor that propels the truck or may be adapted to be towed by a separate vehicle (e.g., may include a tongue and/or hitch coupler to connect to the separate vehicle). The hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 includes a rear 104, a front 106, and a longitudinal axis A1 that extends through the front 106 and the rear 104 of the hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100. The hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 includes a cab 108 arranged near the front 106. The various components of the hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100, such as the excavation pump 125 (FIG. 2A), vacuum pump 140, and the like, are powered by an engine (not shown) that propels the apparatus 100. In other embodiments, a dedicated engine is provided that powers the various components of the hydro excavation apparatus 100 or the apparatus 100 is powered by other methods. Referring to FIGS. 2A and 2B, the hydro excavation vacuum apparatus 100 includes a fluid supply system 112 for dispensing an excavating fluid solution and a vacuum system 114. The fluid supply system 112 includes a base fluid reservoir 116, and additive reservoir 118, and an additive dosing assembly 120 for introducing additive from the additive reservoir 118 into the base fluid to form a mixed solution. The vacuum system 114 may include a boom 136 that is capable of rotating toward the excavation site to remove material from the excavation site. The boom 136 includes a dig tube 138 that extends downward to the ground to vacuum spoil material from the excavation site. The dig tube 138 may be manipulated by a user to direct the vacuum suction toward the excavation site. In other embodiments, the vacuum system 114 includes the dig tube 138 and does not include the boom 136. The vacuum system 114 acts to entrain the cut earth and the solution used to excavate the site in a stream of air. A blower or vacuum pump 140 (FIG. 2A) pulls a vacuum through the boom 136 to entrain the material in the airstream. Air is discharged from the blower 140 after material is removed from the airstream. The airstream having solution and cut earth entrained therein is pulled through the boom 136 and is pulled into a collection tank 142. Air exits one or more collection tank 142 air outlets 144 and is introduced into cyclones 146 (FIG. 2) to remove additional spoil material (e.g., water, small solids such as sand, low density particles such as sticks and grass, and the like) not separated in the collection tank 142. Material that collects in the bottom of the cyclones 146 is collected in collection chamber 180. Solids from the collection chamber 180 and collection tank 142 may be loaded into a bin, dumpster, loader bucket, ground pile, roll-off bin, dump truck or the like or may be conveyed to the site of the excavation as backfill. Solids may be transported off of the excavation apparatus 100 by other methods. The air removed from the cyclones 146 is introduced into one or more filter elements 148 before entering the vacuum pump 140. Air is removed from the apparatus through a vacuum exhaust 150. In some embodiments, the dosing line 160 introduces the additive into the base fluid reservoir 116. In such an embodiment, the base fluid stored in the base fluid reservoir may be “batch dosed,” in that the pump may be operated until a predetermined volume of additive has been released into the base fluid reservoir 116, such that the resulting solution in the base fluid reservoir 116 has a desired additive concentration. In some such embodiments, the base fluid reservoir 116 further includes a mixing apparatus for mixing the additive with the base fluid in the base fluid reservoir 116. Suitable mixing apparatuses include, for example and without limitation, a recirculation loop, rotatable paddles, etc.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided WHITE et al. with the mobile vacuum features of KEELEY et al. (e.g., the chassis, truck body, wheels, boom, and vacuum pump) to enable hydro vacuum excavation at an excavation site while removing cut earthen material and water by a vacuum system wherein the spoil material is removed by entraining the spoil material in an airstream generated by the vacuum system and loaded into the collection vessel/mixer housing of WHITE et al. for further processing [0003], [0032].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of KEELEY et al. (US 2022/0412044 A1).
Modified WHITE et al. does not disclose the recited materials of claim 18. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the rollers of modified WHITE et al. from any suitable material, including the materials recited in claim 18, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice as outlined above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of KEELEY et al. (US 2022/0412044 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of HOLLEY (US 4881887).
Modified WHITE et al. discloses the mixer housing including an outer support structure for supporting the rollers for rotation within the housing 120 but does not disclose an inner liner sheet positioned between the outer support structure and the roller of the plurality of roller assemblies.
HOLLEY discloses a mixer housing with an outer support structure 3 and an inner liner sheet 4 positioned between the outer support structure 3 and the rotatable members 2 disposed within the mixer housing. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the housing of modified WHITE et al. with an inner liner sheet as taught by HOLLEY for the purpose of preventing the substance being processed in the housing from adhering to the outer support structure (col. 2, lines 6-32).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WHITE et al. (US 2002/0122350 A1) in view of KEELEY et al. (US 2022/0412044 A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of HIRAGURI ET AL. (US 6196957).
Modified WHITE et al. does not disclose the filler material within the rollers.
HIRAGURI et al. discloses rollers in FIGS. 1 and 2 showing a roller constructed with a metal conduit 1 and an outer tube 7 made of thermally resistant metal. The outer tube 7 is firmly attached to the metal conduit 1 by flanges 3, 4 located at opposite ends of the outer tube 7 and by one or more metallic filler support rings 40 fixed peripherally between the flanges 3, 4. FIG. 3 shows a roller with a thermal insulating material 50, as of a fibrous ceramic is filled (as a filler) in a space defined between the metal conduit 1 and the outer tube 7 of thermally resistant metal.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the rollers of modified WHITE et al. with a filler therein as taught by HIRAGURI et al. for the purposes of reinforcing the rollers via the support rings (40) embodiment of Figs. 1-2 or to insulate the roller to gain improved thermal insulation of the roll and stabilized support of the outer portion of the roller (col. 1, lines 21-36 and lines 57-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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 an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the recited tie down assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses roller type mixers and mobile vacuum devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 3 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights