DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication mailed by the applicant on 08/27/2024. The application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/076790 claiming priority to foreign application DE10 2021 125 613.5 filed on 10/04/2021. Because all of the requirements for claiming foreign priority are met, the effective filing date for the claims is 10/04/2021. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application and are examined on the merits.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearson (US PN 2,364,163).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson discloses a device (figure 1) for separating bulk material comprising a conveying device in the form of a rotatable drum (item 12, figure 1), which has at least one receptacle (item 35, figure 3) for separately conveying the bulk material from a feeding area (item 13, figure 3) for bulk material and is designed to convey bulk material (item N, walnuts, figure 3) by means of the at least one receptacle in a separated manner from the feeding area to a depositing surface (item 57, figure 3) during rotation of the drum.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Pearson discloses that the drum has at least four receptacles (more than four receptacles 35, figure 3) for separately conveying bulk material from the feeding area.
Regarding claim 3, Pearson discloses that the device is designed to convey the bulk material at least in sections in a free-running manner by means of the drum (bulk material is transported from storage to deposit area in sections, see figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Pearson discloses that the drum has one or more surface structures (extension 38, screws 31’, 37’, figure 3) in the form of protrusions and/or depressions and wherein the one or more surfaces structures differ in shape from the receptacles (structures 31’, 37’, 38 differ from receptacle 35 in shape, figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Pearson discloses that the one or more surface structures of the drum extend at least partially along the outer circumference of the drum (figure 4).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Pearson discloses that at least one limiting element (item 61, figure 3) is provided between the drum and the feeding area, which limits the flow of the bulk material to the drum (riser wall 60 limits how many articles N can engage the openings 35 of drum 12).
Regarding claim 10, Pearson discloses that at least one receptacle of the drum has at least one curved or arched contour, such that a shovel-shaped receptacle is formed (raised portion 38 and curbed cup portion 35 create a shovel-shaped cross-section for the receptacle, figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Pearson discloses a system (figure 2) comprising at least one of the device for separating bulk material according to claim 1 and a feeding area (item 13, figure 2) for bulk material in the form of a box or container, which is capable of is connected to this device, and a conveying device (item 57, figure 2) in the form of a chute (chute shape, figure 2), which is designed to transport the separated bulk material from the rotatable drum to the depositing surface.
Regarding claim 12, Pearson discloses that the conveying device is designed in the form of the chute, which at its end facing away from the rotatable drum has a curvature in the form of a slope with which the bulk material conveyed via the chute is guided against the force of gravity (figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Pearson discloses a pressing unit (item 15, figure 3) wherein the pressing unit is designed downstream of the device for separating bulk material (the stamp 15 stamps the article N and also presses it down to secure it against rocking, column 2, lines 35-45).
Regarding claim 17, Pearson discloses that the device is designed to convey the bulk material at least in sections in a free-running manner by means of the drum (bulk material is transported from storage to deposit area in sections, see figures 1 and 3), wherein the device does not have a wall opposite or adjacent to the drum along the areas in which the bulk material is transported during operation (device does not have a wall adjacent the drum 12 where the bulk material is being transported, figure 3), and not at a distance by which the conveying of the bulk material by the drum is influenced.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson.
Regarding claim 14, Pearson teaches a device (figure 1) for separating bulk material comprising a conveying device in the form of a rotatable drum (item 12, figure 1), which has at least one receptacle (item 35, figure 3) for separately conveying the bulk material from a feeding area (item 13, figure 3) for bulk material and is designed to convey bulk material (item N, walnuts, figure 3) by means of the at least one receptacle in a separated manner from the feeding area to a depositing surface (item 57, figure 3) during rotation of the drum.
Pearson does not explicitly teach a plurality of conveying devices that work with a common feeding area and convey the bulk material to a common depositing surface during the rotation of the drums.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pearson to form a comprehensive processing assembly which includes a plurality of rotating drum conveying devices which receives bulk material from a storage area and separates it, and conveys it to a depositing area in order to increase the amount of bulk material processing capability for the device. Doing so would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Claims 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Ackley, Jr. et al. (“Ackley, Jr.” hereinafter) (US PN 4,104,966).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Pearson does not teach two brush elements as limiting elements slidably mounted on another two further limiting elements with resetting elements.
Ackley, Jr. teaches a bulk material separating and conveying device (item 1, figure 1) comprising a rotating drum (item 21, figure 1) with receptacles (item24, figure 1) and one imitating element (item 30, figure 1) in the form of a brush and another limiting element (flexible plastic strips (acting like slidable brush element) 18, figure 1A) with a resetting element (item 17, figure 1) that continues to ensure the bulk material sitting the drum receptable is oriented in a proper direction (column 5, lines 6-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pearson as taught by Ackley, Jr. to have provided a brush slidably mounted with or on a limiting element along a with a resetting element to ensure that the bulk material that is being carried in the receptacle is oriented in a proper disposal direction and also to ensure that the material does not fall out of the drum receptacle due to rotary movement. Furthermore, it would be obvious to provide more than one of such limiting element assemblies around the rotating drum as needed to ensure an efficient and secure bulk material separation operation. Doing so would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Stanikowski (US PG PUB 2021/0037879).
Regarding claim 9, Pearson teaches the invention as discussed in detail above but does not explicitly teach a sensor and a control unit to monitor the operation.
Stanikowski teaches a bulk material processing device (item 1, figure 1) comprising at least one sensor (item 27, figure 1) in the form of a light barrier (optical sensor, paragraph [0030]) is provided, which is directed towards the drum and which is connected to a control unit (item 28, figure 1) wherein the control unit monitors the rotation of the drum by means of a signal from the sensor (paragraphs [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pearson as taught by Stanikowski to have provided an optical sensor and a control unit that monitor the rotating drum and the bulk material and control the rotational speed of the drum in order to ensure an efficient and effective bulk material separating operation as taught by Stanikowski.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Yoshida (US PN 3,933,239).
Regarding claim 13, Pearson teaches that the chute has, at its end facing away from the rotatable drum in the area of the slope (figures 2 and 3) but does not explicitly teach at least one deflection means.
Yoshida teaches another bulk material positioning and separating device (figure 2) comprising a depositing chut (item G, figure 2) comprising at least deflection means (V-shaped portion of guide G, figure 2) in the form of a bulge, by means of which bulk material conveyed on the chute is capable of being deflected to the left and/or right out of the conveying direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Pearson as taught by Yoshida to have provided at least one deflection means in the form of a beveled edge or a bulge in the depositing chute to separate the material in left or right direction. While Yoshida teaches use of the bulge to converge the material from two rotating drums, a similar bulge can be placed downstream to diverge the separated bulk material if such is desired. Doing so would be within the range one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following documents disclose subject matter related to rotatable drum conveyers to process and separate bulk materials: US PN 4,353,456, US PN 4,394,933, US PN 5,454,464, US PN 5,996,768, and US PN 6,059,518; and
The following document discloses subject matter related to using an optical sensor to monitor the rotating drum operation for a bulk material conveyor: US PN 5,415,267.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754