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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 24, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final Rejection on January 27, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims addressing the rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 1 distinguishing the claim from the rejection. However, amended claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office action are modified in so far as they are impacted by the amendments made to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting in the bottom half of page 7 of the Amendment, Auer fails to disclose pin rings 8 are mechanically fastened in a detachable manner because Auer merely discloses they are fitted into respective grooves. Examiner respectfully disagrees. A person of ordinary skill would understand rings 8 are separate bodies fitted into grooves of lower rotor 7 so that they may be detached from the fitting and replaced when worn. Accordingly, Examiner does not find the argument persuasive.
Applicant argues, in the paragraph spanning from page 7 to 8, not all of Auer’s rings 6 are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than rings 8 as claim 1 claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees claim 1 claims all of the pins on the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotor than all of the pins on the upper rotor. Claim 1 claims, in relevant part, “all the pins on the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than the pins on the upper rotor”. This limitation does not require all of the pins on the lower rotor be closer to the axis of rotation than all of the pins on the upper rotor. It merely requires all of the pins on the lower rotor be closer to the axis of rotation than pins of the upper rotor. Therefore, the limitation does not preclude the reasonable interpretation all of the pins on the lower rotor be closer to the axis of rotation than any pin on the upper rotor. Auer discloses this relationship.
Applicant argues, in the first full paragraph of page 8, the previous Office action failed to explain how Conley discloses the feature of claim 2 amended into claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons. First, Conley was not relied upon for disclosing the pins are turnable for evenly distributing their wear. Examiner interpreted this limitation as the pins turn with the rotor they are detachably fastened on as the rotor turns during its rotation. Auer discloses this limitation. Secondly, the amendment added to the end of claim 1 is not the same as what was deleted from claim 2. The amendment added to the end of claim 1 claims “each of the pins on the lower rotor is rotatable around its axis”. This was not previously claimed.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Great Britian Patent Document No. GB 967962 A by Auer, hereinafter “Auer”, in view of United Kingdom Patent Application Publication No. GB 2 458 570 by Hughes, hereinafter “Hughes”.
Regarding claim 1, Auer discloses an apparatus for crushing material (apparatus shown in Figs. 1 and 2; page 2, line 8-12), the apparatus comprising
an upper rotor (upper rotor cover 5 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 21-26) and
a lower rotor (lower rotor 7 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 14), the rotors being rotatable in a horizontal plane in opposite directions around a vertical axis of rotation (Fig. 1 shows rotor 5 and rotor 7 rotating in a horizontal plane. Page 1, line 16-22 discloses the rotors may be configured to rotate in opposite directions.),
wherein a center of the upper rotor there is an opening for feeding material between the upper rotor and the lower rotor (opening inlet passage 10 in Figs. 1-2 feeds material between rotors 5 and 7; page 2, line 21-26), and
pins are provided on an outer rim of the upper rotor (pin annular bodies 6 on upper rotor 5 in Fig. 1; page 2, line 41-51),
wherein the lower rotor comprises a central cone (cone-shaped nut 11 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 62-66 and 74-79) with blades (blades 13 in Figs. 1-2; page 2, line 59-73), wherein pins are mechanically fastened in a detachable manner to the lower rotor for individually replacing the pins (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are separate bodies fixed in grooves of lower rotor 7 such that they may each individually be detached and replaced; page 2, line 36-40 and 46-51), and
the pins are installed in series in a radial direction of the lower rotor (Fig. 1 shows pin rings 8 are installed in series in the radial direction of lower rotor 7) and all the pins on the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than the pins on the upper rotor (Fig. 1 shows all of pin rings 8 are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than pin bodies 6 of upper rotor 5).
Auer does not disclose tooth-like projections 81 in Fig. 1 are rotatable around their axes for evenly distributing wear.
In the same field of apparatus for crushing material, Hughes teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount cutting blades on a rotating rotor to be freely rotatable about their central axes during operation to evenly distribute wear. See page 6, lines 1-31.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Hughes to Auer’s apparatus by separating Auer’s rings 8 into separate tooth-like projections that are individually rotatable about their individual axes to even out wear in the same way Hughes teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hughes to Auer’s apparatus would achieve the predictable result of improving Auer’s apparatus by prolonging the useful life of Auer’s tooth-like projections 81.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses there are 2-8 units of pin rings 8 in a series as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses the series of pins are located at regular intervals on the lower rotor (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are located at regular intervals in the radial direction on lower rotor 7), in which case the lower rotor is in balance, and in that there are 2-8 series on the lower rotor (three pin rings 8 are shown in Fig. 1 of lower rotor 7).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses the pins of a series on the lower rotor are located attached to each other. Fig. 1 shows pin rings 8 are attached to each other through rotor 7.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus of claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses the pins of a series on the lower rotor are located at a distance from each other. That is, the portion 81 of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 of Auer extending above the surface of lower rotor 7 are located at a distance from each other to receive portion 61 of pin annular bodies 6. See page 2, line 46-51. But, Auer is silent regarding the distance between the comminuting surfaces of pin rings 8. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distance the comminuting surfaces of pin rings 8 less than 10 mm apart since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, Auer’s apparatus would not perform differently with the claimed distance. Further, it appears applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply it is advantageous to distance the pins within the claimed range. See applicant’s written description at page 6, line 4-11.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses the series of pins on the lower rotor (series of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1) is located to start from the outer rim of the lower rotor towards the axis of rotation of the lower rotor (the outermost pin ring 8 in Fig. 1 starts from the outer rim of lower rotor 7).
Regarding claims 9-10, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The limitations of claims 9 and 10 recite a manner of operating the apparatus according to claim 1, i.e. the intended rotational operating speed of the rotors. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See M.P.E.P. 2114,II. In the instant case, Auer anticipates all of the structural limitations of claims 9 and 10 in that the structural limitations are contained within claim 1 and Auer anticipates claim 1 as explained above.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses pin annular bodies 6 are on the inner rim of upper rotor 5 and spaced at regular intervals as shown in Fig. 1. But, Auer only discloses 3 annular bodies 6. Thus Auer does not disclose 4-16 annular bodies as claim 11 specifies. However it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of annular bodies 6 so as to cause their number to be from 4-16 since it has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See M.P.E.P. 2144.04,VI,B.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses the apparatus comprises a cover provided with piping, through which piping pneumatic impacts and/or water and/or other liquid or chemicals can be supplied from the top and/or from a side of the apparatus. Cover upper rotor 5 in Fig. 1 is provided with piping which is capable of supplying water from the top side of the apparatus. See “Piping” annotation to Fig. 1 of Auer reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
688
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Auer discloses a method for crushing lumpy material by using an apparatus comprising an upper rotor rotatable in a horizontal plane around a vertical axis of rotation (upper rotor cover 5 in Figs. 1-2 is shown as being rotatable in a horizontal plane. Page 1, line 16-22 discloses the rotors may be configured to rotate in opposite directions.), and a lower rotor rotatable in the opposite direction around the same axis of rotation (lower rotor 7 in Figs. 1-2), the method comprising feeding material between the upper rotor and the lower rotor from an opening in a center of the upper rotor (opening inlet passage 10 in Figs. 1-2 feeds material between rotors 5 and 7) and onto a central cone of the lower rotor (cone-shaped nut 11 in Figs. 1-2), wherein blades of a central cone pre-crush the material (blades 13 of cone-shaped nut 11 in Fig. 1 pre-crush material as it passes through inlet 10), wherein pins fastened to the lower rotor form a series (pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are fastened to lower rotor 7 is series in the radial direction), which series causes the material to move in a bouncing manner in front of the pins (page 1, line 37-43 discloses the apparatus shown in Figs. 1 and 2 uses bouncing action between the teeth of the rotors to comminute the material), and when leaving from a top of the lower rotor, the material collides with pins on the upper rotor (the material collides with pin annular bodies 6 of upper rotor 5 when it bounces from lower rotor 7), and all the pins on the lower rotor are closer to the axis of rotation of the rotors than the pins on the upper rotor (all of pin rings 8 on lower rotor 7 are closer to the axis of rotation than pin annular bodies 6 of upper rotor 5 as shown in Fig. 1).
Auer does not disclose tooth-like projections 81 in Fig. 1 are rotatable around their axes for evenly distributing wear.
In the same field of apparatus for crushing material, Hughes teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount cutting blades on a rotating rotor to be freely rotatable about their central axes during operation to evenly distribute wear. See page 6, lines 1-31.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Hughes to Auer’s apparatus by separating Auer’s rings 8 into separate tooth-like projections that are individually rotatable about their individual axes to even out wear in the same way Hughes teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hughes to Auer’s apparatus would achieve the predictable result of improving Auer’s apparatus by prolonging the useful life of Auer’s tooth-like projections 81.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of Hughes and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,229,923 to Conley et al., hereinafter “Conley”.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus of claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Auer further discloses portion 81 of pin rings 8 in Fig. 1 are polygonal in cross-sectional shape. However, Auer does not disclose pin rings 8 are sleeved with steel as claim 2 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Conley teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sleeve components of the rotors in hardened steel . See column 6, line 67 through column 7, line 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sleeve Auer’s pin rings 8 in hardened steel to prevent wear in the same way Conley teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Conley to the apparatus of Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s apparatus with hardened sleeves over the comminuting surfaces to prevent wear as Conley teaches.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of Hughes and further in view of Great Britian Patent Document No. GB 1,002,877 by Doyle et al., hereinafter “Doyle”.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the apparatus according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Auer does not disclose a distance corresponding to the thickness of 1-2 pins exists between the surface of the outermost pin ring 8 and the outer edge of lower rotor 7 as claim 8 recites.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Doyle teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distance the outermost pin of the lower rotor 1-2 pin thicknesses from the outer edge of the lower rotor. See Fig. 7 where pin P17 is distance more than one of its thicknesses away from the outer edge of lower rotor 18.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the outermost pin ring 8 of Auer away from the outer edge of lower rotor 7 at a distance of at least one thickness of portion 81 in the same way Doyle teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Doyle to the apparatus of Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s apparatus with the claimed spacing.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of Hughes and further in view of Finish Patent Publication No. FI 128329 B by Hänninen, hereinafter “Hanninen”.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. However, Auer is silent regarding giving pneumatic impacts at regular intervals through the Piping as annotated in the rejection of claim 12.
In the same field of rotary comminution apparatus, Hanninen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give pneumatic impacts at regular interval through piping of the cover from above the apparatus. See air gap 15 adjacent supply tube 14 and the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give pneumatic impacts at regular intervals through Auer’s Piping in the same way Hanninen teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hanninen to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of adding the further step of giving pneumatic impacts through the piping of the cover as Hanninen teaches.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. However, Auer is silent regarding adding water or other liquid and/or chemicals to the apparatus via piping of the cover.
In the same field of rotary comminution apparatus, Hanninen teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water via piping in the cover. See the abstract teaching water may be added to the compressed air supply.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add water to Auer’s apparatus via Auer’s Piping in the same way Hanninen teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Hanninen to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of adding the further step of adding water through the piping of the cover as Hanninen teaches.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auer in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,640,475 to Jung et al., hereinafter “Jung”.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Page 2, line 101-106 of Auer only gives an example rotational speed of the apparatus as 3,000 r.p.m. Therefore Auer does not disclose rotating the lower rotor at speeds of 1200-800 rpm as claim 16 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Jung teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rotational speed of the rotary apparatus such that it provides sufficient grinding on the lower end of the operational range while providing sufficient ventilation at the upper end of the range. See column 1, line 11-25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Auer’s disclosed method by causing the rotational speed of lower rotor 7 to be within the range of 1200-800 rpm to achieve the desired operational outcome as Jung teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jung to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s method employing a particular rotational speed range.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Auer in view of Hughes renders the method according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Page 2, line 101-106 of Auer only gives an example rotational speed of the apparatus as 3,000 r.p.m. Therefore Auer does not disclose rotating the upper rotor at speeds of 1100-700 rpm as claim 17 claims.
In the same field of rotary comminuting apparatus, Jung teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the rotational speed of the rotary apparatus such that it provides sufficient grinding on the lower end of the operational range while providing sufficient ventilation at the upper end of the range. See column 1, line 11-25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize Auer’s disclosed method by causing the rotational speed of upper rotor 5 to be within the range of 1100-700 rpm to achieve the desired operational outcome as Jung teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jung to the method disclosed by Auer would achieve the predictable result of Auer’s method employing a particular rotational speed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 15 September 2026
Prosecution Insights