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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regrading claim 1, in line 15 the phrase " the circular or annular array" should be changed to " the array".
Regrading claim 8, the phrase " the first and second arrays of apertures" should be changed to " the arrays of apertures".
Regrading claim 12, the phrase " each pulp lifter element" should be changed to "each of the pulp lifter element".
Regrading claim 14, the phrase "at least one inlet for receiving a continuous feed of material to be ground at least one outlet for continuous discharge of ground material" should be changed to " at least one inlet for receiving a continuous feed of material to be ground, at least one outlet for continuous discharge of ground material".
Regrading claim 14, the phrase "attached to each pulp lifter element" should be changed to "attached to each of the pulp lifter element".
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
The lack of clear transitional phrases in independent claim 1 render the claim indefinite as it cannot clearly be determined where the preamble ends and the body of the claim starts. See MPEP 2111.03.
The recitation of claim 1 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the scope of the claim is to “a grinding mill” having “a pulp lifter that including a grate plate”; the scope of the claim is to “a pulp lifter having a grate plate”; or the scope of the claim is merely “a grate plate”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the drum" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regrading claim 1, in line 10 the phrase "the drum" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element having "the drum".
Regrading claim 1, in lines 11-12 the phrase "the cylindrical drum" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the cylindrical drum" is the same as or different from "the drum" that recited in line 10 of the same claim 1.
Regrading claim 1, in line 14 the phrase "the resulting" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element having "the drum".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the point" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-15 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “essentially” in claims 4-5 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “A plurality of grate plates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “A plurality of grate plates” is the same as or different from “a series of grate plates” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “A plurality of grate plates” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “A plurality of grate plates” is the same as or different from “a series of grate plates” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “complimentary side edges” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “complimentary side edges”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “side edges” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “side edges” is the same as or different from “side edges” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “a circular or annular array” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a circular or annular array” is the same as or different from “a circular or annular array” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “A pulp lifter” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “A pulp lifter” is the same as or different from “A pulp lifter” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a grinding mil” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a grinding mil” is the same as or different from “a grinding mil” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a circular or annular array” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a circular or annular array” is the same as or different from “a circular or annular array” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “a grate plate” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a grate plate” is the same as or different from “a grate plate” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “A grinding mill” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “A grinding mill” is the same as or different from “A grinding mill” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a cylindrical drum” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a cylindrical drum” is the same as or different from “the cylindrical drum” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “arranged rotatably around its longitudinal axis” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a pulp lifter” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a pulp lifter” is the same as or different from “a pulp lifter” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the cylindrical shell” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the cylindrical shell” is the same as or different from “a cylindrical drum” that recited in line 1 of the same claim 14.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a circular or annular array” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a circular or annular array” is the same as or different from “a circular or annular array” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “a grate plate” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a grate plate” is the same as or different from “a grate plate” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closet prior art is Latchireddi (US20200298247A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “at least portions of the complementary leading and trailing side edges of the grate plate are inclined or curved in a second circumferential direction of the array relative to a radial line of the array running through the point of intersection of the respective side edge with the outer edge, wherein the second circumferential direction is opposite the first circumferential direction” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-15 are depended from claim 1.
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725