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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Watts (2019/0358643).
Regarding claim 1, Watts discloses A cutter assembly for an industrial machine (tree stump grinder is an industrial machine, per se), comprising: a wedge tapering in an outward direction and including a first angled surface (12 figure 5), the first angled surface extending from a base side that is configured to seat in a pocket in a rotational shaft(the pocket is the area surrounding the numeral 10 indicated in figure 5); and a holder (2) including: a tapered section (8 figure 5 shows the taper) tapering in an inward direction (see 8 figure 5, the portion of which mates with 12) toward a base side of the holder and including a second angled surface that is configured to form an interface with the first angled surface(as shown in figure 7, labeled “tapered faces”); and one or more attachment device openings each configured to receive an attachment device (See attachment device 14—‘bolt’ in figure 7m which is shown for engagement within a hole in 12 seen in isometric in figure 6, and discussed at [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Watts discloses an industrial machine (tree stump grinder is an industrial machine, per se) comprising: a rotational shaft (“grinding wheel 4” – see figure 10, inter alia) including a pocket (e.g. 8 figure 10); and a cutter assembly (2 and 12, figure 10, inter alia) designed to removably attach to the pocket (via bolt 14, for example), the cutter assembly comprising: a wedge tapering in an outward radial direction and including a first angled surface that extends from a base that is configured to seat in the pocket (12 figure 7, see also figures 6 and 10 for relative positioning); and a holder (2 figure 6, inter alia)including: a tapered section tapering in an inward direction (See tapered section ‘faces’ figure 7) and including a second angled surface that is in face sharing contact with the first angled surface (ibid).
Regarding claim 4 Watts discloses the holder includes a polygonal cutter with two opposing planar sides and one of the two opposing planar sides is configured to be in face sharing contact with a side wall in the pocket(See the assembled condition at figure 1, 2 and 5, showing opposed planes and the ends of the holder which engages them at rear).
Regarding claim 6, the attachment opening of Watts is seen to be in a radial direction of the wheel.
Regarding claim 15, see wedge and block 12 which engages at step proximal to 9 figure 1, as noted in Figure 1 at ‘c)’ or shown at ‘b)’.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts, as above, in view of Pfoltner (US 2014/0346263).
Regarding claim 3 Watts discloses The cutter assembly of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the holder includes one or more attachment device openings that extend laterally through the holder and are each designed to receive an attachment device and permit movement of the holder during installation.
In Watts the holder is ambiguous as to how the cutting tips (16) are mounted to the holder (2) – figure 6-7.
The use of one or more attachment device openings that extend laterally through the holder of comminution tips is well known, for the purpose of replacing the tips when worn. See Pfoltner (US 2014/0346263) which uses bolt 25 through the tooth 1 to attach to a holder (21). While this is a different style, this fashion of mounting is known in the art, and could have been used in Watts to achieve the same function of replace-ability for the tooth 16 thereof. Doing so would not impact movement of the holder during installation.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts, as above, in view of Päper (US 6,322,012).
Regarding claim 1, in the alternative to the above discussion, Watts discloses A cutter assembly for an industrial machine (tree stump grinder is an industrial machine, per se), comprising: a wedge tapering in an outward direction and including a first angled surface (2 figure 5), the first angled surface extending from a base side that is configured to seat in a pocket in a rotational shaft (the pocket is the area surrounding the numeral 10 indicated in figure 5); and a holder (12) including: a tapered section (12 shows the taper of itself figure 5 shows the taper of the exterior of 12) tapering in an inward direction (from right to left 12 tapers to a smaller width, as shown in figure 5) toward a base side of the holder and including a second angled surface that is configured to form an interface with the first angled surface (as shown in figure 7, labeled “tapered faces”); and one or more attachment device openings each configured to receive an attachment device (See attachment device 14—‘bolt’ in figure 7m which is shown for engagement within a hole in 12 seen in isometric in figure 6, and discussed at [0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Watts shows a cutter 16 mounted onto the wedge 2, but Watts does not appear to show a cutter configured to mate with a detent in the wedge. The nature of the interface with 2 and 16 is not discussed. The question then, is what do people of ordinary skill know about mounting or mating cutters to their holder substrates, such as the wedge 2 of Watts.
Päper discloses “The surfaces 27 and the edge 26 correspond with the surfaces and the groove bottom of a knife seat groove of a cutting shaft. In the area of a front surface 29, two rhombic knife plate seats 50 are recessed in the front end 29. The rhombic knife seats 50 have two bearing surfaces 51 for the knife-plates arranged at an angle to one another, whereby a knife plate bearing surface 51 extends diagonally downward on the outside from edge 21a and the related second knife plate bearing surface 51 extends diagonally inward at the bottom, parallel to surface 27, from the edge formed by the surface 24 and 25. The knife bearing surfaces 51 thus form a flat recess 50 made in the front surface 29 with respect to the longitudinal extension of the block 20, whereby the lower point or recess is rounded and fluted in the common origin of the surface 51 for accommodating the lower point of a knife plate. The surfaces 21b, 24 and 51 defined, at the front end, a rhombic knife bearing surface 53 into whose symmetrical axis a horizontal threaded bore 54 is placed.” See, inter alia, figure 9. Use is also discussed of alternative cutters (knives 20, 201 cover / cutting tool: ‘A cutting tool (201) according to the invention (FIGS. 15 to 18) is, in a top view, an essentially rhombic plate’) And the desire for replacement : “The cutting tools 201 can be used as rotating knives, so that, once the edges 204 in the area of a front end are worn, the knife in unscrewed from the knife holder 217, turn and can be fastened to the knife carrier again.”
While the mounting of the cutters of Watts to the base thereof (wedge 2) is ambiguous or not detailed, the art clearly shows that it is old and well known to use the same type of mounting applicant has presented—pockets with lateral wedge faces, in order to seat a replaceable polygonal CUTTER ELEMENT such as shown in Päper discussed above, in order to permit their ready replacement when worn, for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the cutting arrangement at the lead of the wedge of Watts with a replaceable set of knives or rhombic cutters as taught by Päper to be convenient and useful in replacing worn cutting edges without replacement of the whole base of the mounting structure.
Regarding claim 8, it is met in the same manner as claim 1 and 5 as explained above—the modification to Watts resulting in the same features as claimed therein.
Regarding claim 9, Watts’ holder (12) comprises: a first attachment device opening (through-hole depicted in figure 5 inter alia) configured to receive a first attachment device (bolt) that is designed to removably couple to the pocket (as shown in figures 5, 7, inter alia).
Regarding claim 10, Watts further shows first attachment device opening is radially aligned.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts as set forth above, in view of US 8,167,225.
Regarding claim 2, Watts shows a wedge includes a first step (as shown at 9 figure 1), however, Watts does not show the holder includes a second step (12 lacks a step), wherein the first and second steps are mated (the Watts elements 9 and 12 do mate at the step location when mounted together), and the first step constrains outward movement of the (block) 12 (See figure 1).
Ion the broader art of teeth mounting in cutter wheels, it is known to have both elements in a mating pair to have steps at the mounting interface to provide clear and firm engagement as an abutment end to travel. This is seen in US 8,167,225 in the interface at 20 and 28 figure 2. There is clearly a step designed so that the inserted element will seat in a corresponding step of the holder 28.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both mating elements of Watts with step elements, rather than just element 2 of Watts having an internal step, since the use of steps on one or both are known in the art (as seen and evidenced in US 8,167,225) and the use of two corresponding steps could be done with no undue experimentation or unexpected results and would provide the routine effect of providing clear and firm mating surfaces during engagement as shown in US 8,167,225.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts.
Regarding claim 7, Watts does not discuss the materials the holder is made of as claimed such that “wherein the wedge is constructed out of a different type of steel than the holder.”
Watts discusses “preferably, a section is included within the tooth that protects the wheel from wear, such that standard mild steel can be used which is cheaper and easier to machine than the material used in conventional” [0024]. It is elsewhere noted the tips are “carbide.”
Watts also notes “Expensive steel may be used to extend the life span but this is harder to machine in production.” [0008].
In that context, it is taught that different steels have different properties, and the different components have different uses. Some portions may be more size specific, some may need more durability, some may need to be made from a more machinable metal for reasons of cost of machining. This is apparent in the design of Watts discussed above.
In the same field of endeavor it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify Watts by making the different components from different steels as taught by Watts, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Since Watts notes the existance of steel and describes the various attributes the components of the Watts designs need, the designation of a specific steel for each component does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design, and does not require any undue experimentation or lead to any unexpected results—the choice of less expensive steel for some components results in less expensive design; etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Regarding claim 11, requirement of “the holder includes a laterally aligned attachment device opening that is designed to receive a second attachment device and permit movement of the holder during installation.” Is not seen in the combination of Watts and Päper. While a lateral bolt, such as that shown in Montgomery (US 5,044,570) at 43 would be similar to the claimed coupling of the cutter blade into a holder (in a wedge, as set forth above). 12 is allowable for dependence on claim 11.
Regarding claim 13 “further comprising a cutter including a planar face that is configured to contact a first planar face in a cutting protrusion of the holder.” Is not met by the prior art as best understood. In the combination of Watts and Päper, the wedge and holder are distinct (as in Watts alone) and the wedge of the combination is the back to the cutter which can be mounted thereon—the wedge of the combination is therefore not open to combine with nad interact with a cutting protrusion of the holder. While holders are known (as Watts) and/or Päper, there is not a suitable evidence showing the use of a backing holder with cutting face which would interact with the cutter of the claim. As such this is allowable, there being no apparent or appropriate combination of art which shows these combined claimed features.
Claim 14 is allowable for its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 16 requires the same essential combination of elements as claim 11 or 13, the use of two sets of attachment members, and the requi8rement that the second planer surface of the holder interacts with the cutter in a detent in the wedge as claimed is not seen to be anticipated or obvious in light of the art known. As such claim 16 is similarly allowable., as are those claims 17-20 dependent therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724