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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 8-15 are pending in the present application with claims 8 and 9 being independent, as set forth in the Amendment dated September 18, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 6, it appears that “a polymer layer” should be changed to --the polymer layer--.
In claim 12, line 2, it appears that “the support element” should be changed to --a support 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 10-12 are 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.
Claim 10 recites how the sensors are load sensors which are connected to a support element arranged on the top of the impact ring. However, claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, recites that the device comprises one or more sensors selected from load and vibration sensors thus leading to confusion as to whether claim 10 requires the device to have two or more load sensors or is just defining the group of sensors from which the “one or more” sensors of claim 9 are selected. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume claim 10 is just defining the group of sensors from which the “one or more” sensors of claim 9 are selected.
Claim 11 is rejected based on its dependency from rejected claim 10.
Claim 12 recites how the sensors are vibration sensors which are arranged on the support element. However, claim 9, from which claim 12 depends, recites that the device comprises one or more sensors selected from load and vibration sensors thus leading to confusion as to whether claim 12 requires the device to have two or more vibration sensors or is just defining the group of sensors from which the “one or more” sensors of claim 9 are selected. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume claim 12 is just defining the group of sensors from which the “one or more” sensors of claim 9 are selected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 2,352,327 to Kirn (“Kirn”):
Regarding claim 8, Kirn discloses a device (S) for dehulling of granular goods (hulling machine in Figures 1-2), comprising a material inlet (hopper 36), a rotor (impeller 22) arranged below the material inlet which has an interior (open throat 32) for accommodating granular material from the material inlet and outlet openings (spaces 29 seen in Figure 4) in its side wall communicating with the interior (where the ends of discs 25, 26 define a side wall through which the spaces 29 extend), and an impact ring (ring-shaped impact member 40) which surrounds the rotor at a distance in a ring-shaped manner (see Figures 2-3), wherein the impact ring is a ring-shaped body of metal (note metallic cross-hatching of member 40 in Figures 2 and 7) and a polymer layer on an entire inner surface of the ring-shaped body (rubber insert 41 in Figures 2 and 7; note rubber cross-hatching), wherein the polymer layer is releasably arranged on the inner surface of the ring-shaped body (via studs 42 and retaining ring 43 in Figures 2 and 7 and 2:64-3:18).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,407,141 to Liebing et al. (“Liebing”):
Regarding claim 13, Liebing discloses a method for monitoring the condition of an impact ring of a device (S) for dehulling granular goods, comprising the step of determining the wear of the impact ring by means of one or more sensors, wherein the sensors are selected from the group consisting of load sensors and vibration sensors (Figures 1-2 discloses a grain dehulling device (Figures 1-2) including a supply tube 6, a centrifugal rotor/impeller 3 below the supply tube 6, an impact ring 7 surrounding the rotor in a ring-shaped manner, and a sensor for monitoring the wear/condition of the impact ring (1:47-62), the sensor being in the form of an energy/load sensor 411 configured to measure a weight of the impact ring which corresponds to an amount of wear of the impact ring (5:9-19 and Figure 6) to advantageously avoid switching off of the device for inspections of the impact ring and reduce unexpected interruptions of operations (1:42-46 and 53-55)).
Regarding claim 14, Liebing discloses the method of claim 13, further including wherein by means of one or more load sensors the weight of the impact ring is determined (5:9-19 and Figure 6 discuss/illustrate determining the weight of the impact ring 7 with the energy/load sensor 411).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,352,327 to Kirn (“Kirn”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,407,141 to Liebing et al. (“Liebing”):
Regarding claim 9, Kirn discloses a device (S) for dehulling of granular goods (hulling machine in Figures 1-2), comprising a material inlet (hopper 36), a rotor (impeller 22) arranged below the material inlet which has an interior (open throat 32) for accommodating granular material from the material inlet and outlet openings (spaces 29 seen in Figure 4) in its side wall communicating with the interior (where the ends of discs 25, 26 define a side wall through which the spaces 29 extend), and an impact ring (ring-shaped impact member 40), in particular a ring-shaped body of metal (note metallic cross-hatching of member 40 in Figures 2 and 7) and a polymer layer on an entire inner surface of the ring-shaped body (rubber insert 41 in Figures 2 and 7; note rubber cross-hatching), wherein the polymer layer is releasably arranged on the inner surface of the ring- shaped body (via studs 42 and retaining ring 43 in Figures 2 and 7 and 2:64-3:18), which surrounds the rotor at a distance in a ring-shaped manner (see Figures 2-3), wherein a polymer layer is attached to the entire surface of the impact ring facing the rotor (see Figures 2 and 7), …
However, Kirn appears to be silent regarding wherein the device (S) comprises one or more sensors for monitoring the condition of the impact ring, wherein the sensors are selected from the group consisting of load sensors and vibration sensors.
Nevertheless, Liebing teaches that it was known in the grain dehulling art for a grain dehulling device (Figures 1-2) to include a supply tube 6 (material inlet), a centrifugal rotor/impeller 3 below the inlet, an impact ring 7 surrounding the rotor in a ring-shaped manner, and a sensor for monitoring the wear/condition of the impact ring (1:47-62), the sensor being in the form of an energy/load sensor 411 configured to measure a weight of the impact ring which corresponds to an amount of wear of the impact ring (5:9-19 and Figure 6). This arrangement advantageously avoids switching off of the device for inspections of the impact ring and reduces unexpected interruptions of operations (1:42-46 and 53-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device of Kirn to include one or more sensors (e.g., load sensors) for monitoring the condition of the impact ring as taught by Liebing to advantageously avoid switching off of the device for inspections of the impact ring and reduce unexpected interruptions of operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Regarding claim 10, the Kirn/Liebing combination discloses the device according to claim 9, further including wherein the sensors are load sensors which are connected to a support element arranged on the top of the impact ring (Figure 6 of Liebing illustrates how the load sensor is connected to a support element arranged on top of the impact ring 7 (not labeled in Figure 6 of Liebing); similar to as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device of Kirn to include a load sensors connected to a support element arranged on top of the impact ring for monitoring the condition of the impact ring as taught by Liebing to advantageously avoid switching off of the device for inspections of the impact ring and reduce unexpected interruptions of operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,352,327 to Kirn (“Kirn”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,407,141 to Liebing et al. (“Liebing”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2009/0028656 to Forker (“Forker”):
Regarding claim 11, the Kirn/Liebing combination discloses the device according to claim 10, wherein the device includes a load sensor connected to a support element arranged on the top of the impact ring based on the modification of Kirn in view of Liebing as discussed above.
However, the Kirn/Liebing combination appears to be silent regarding wherein three load sensors are connected to the support element in such a way that the load sensors are each arranged at an angle of 120º to each other, based on their attachment point on the support element.
Nevertheless, Forker teaches (Figures 3-4, claim 9, [0014], [0046], [0058]) that it was known in the mechanical tool load measuring art to connect three load sensors 222 to a base plate 220 (support element) such that the load sensors are each arranged at an angle of 120º to each other, based on their attachment point on the support element, to measure loads/forces of a tool during operation to facilitate determination of unbalanced operational environments, the need to replace the tool, etc., thereby facilitating efficient operation of the tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for three load sensors to be connected to the support element of the Kirn/Liebing combination in such a way that the load sensors are each arranged at an angle of 120º to each other, based on their attachment point on the support element, similar to as taught by Forker to measure loads/forces of a tool during operation to facilitate determination of unbalanced operational environments, the need to replace the tool/impact ring, etc., thereby facilitating efficient operation of the tool/impact ring. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 2,352,327 to Kirn (“Kirn”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,407,141 to Liebing et al. (“Liebing”), and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0236154 to Sun et al. (“Sun”):
Regarding claim 12, the Kirn/Liebing combination discloses the device according to claim 9, further including wherein the device includes various types of sensors for measuring a wear condition of the impact ring such as a displacement sensor (3:18-45 of Liebing), an ultrasonic sensor (3:52-4:57 of Liebing), a light sensor (4:58-5:80 of Liebing), and an energy/load sensor (5:10-20 of Liebing). For instance, Figure 6 of Liebing shows the energy/load sensor being connected to/arranged on a support element (not labeled in Figure 6 of Liebing). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device of Kirn to include one or more sensors for monitoring the condition of the impact ring as taught by Liebing to advantageously avoid switching off of the device for inspections of the impact ring and reduce unexpected interruptions of operations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Thus, while the Kirn/Liebing combination discloses one or more sensors connected to a support element for measuring wear in the impact ring, the Kirn/Liebing combination might be silent regarding the sensors specifically being vibration sensors.
Nevertheless, Sun teaches (Figures 2-3, [0073]-[0075]) that it was known in the bulk handling machine art to utilize a vibration sensor 21/31 connected to a liner 3 via an elongated member 22 and adapter 23 (collectively a “support element”) to monitor a wear rate of the liner 3 owing to impact of bulk material against the liner 3. This arrangement provides an effective manner of monitoring wear of the liner and indicating when the liner should be replaced based on a frequency of a structural resonance associated with the liner ([0061], [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensors of the Kirn/Liebing combination to specifically be vibration sensors as taught by Sun to provides an effective manner of monitoring wear of the ring/liner and indicating when the ring/liner should be replaced based on a frequency of a structural resonance associated with the ring/liner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,407,141 to Liebing et al. (“Liebing”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0236154 to Sun et al. (“Sun”):
Regarding claim 15, Liebing discloses the method of claim 13, further including using various types of sensors for measuring a wear condition of the impact ring such as a displacement sensor (3:18-45 of Liebing), an ultrasonic sensor (3:52-4:57 of Liebing), a light sensor (4:58-5:80 of Liebing), and an energy/load sensor (5:10-20 of Liebing).
However, Liebing combination might be silent regarding the sensors specifically being vibration sensors.
Nevertheless, Sun teaches (Figures 2-3, [0073]-[0075]) that it was known in the bulk handling machine art to utilize a vibration sensor 21/31 connected to a liner 3 via an elongated member 22 and adapter 23 (collectively a “support element”) to monitor a wear rate of the liner 3 owing to impact of bulk material against the liner 3. This arrangement provides an effective manner of monitoring wear of the liner and indicating when the liner should be replaced based on a frequency of a structural resonance associated with the liner ([0061], [0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the sensors of Liebing to specifically be vibration sensors as taught by Sun to provides an effective manner of monitoring wear of the ring/liner and indicating when the ring/liner should be replaced based on a frequency of a structural resonance associated with the ring/liner. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
For reference, AT394501B discloses A replaceable wearing part for the rotor of an impact mill, which is provided with ejection openings formed on the periphery, comprises a supporting body 12 and a hard- metal strip 3. The latter preferably consists of an alloy having a tungsten carbide component of more than 91%, the rest essentially cobalt, and has a breakaway edge 24 and a wearing face 21 running back therefrom in the ejection direction. The wearing part is approximately of L-shaped design, the longer limb of the wearing part being formed by the essentially plate-like supporting body 12 and the shorter limb being formed by the hard-metal strip 13. The wearing face 21 running back from the breakaway edge 24 on the hard-metal strip 13 extends in a convex circular arc. <IMAGE>
Also for reference, U.S. Patent No. 4,393,762 discloses a machine for dehulling flat disc-like seeds having a relatively heavy kernel inside the hull comprising a spinning rotor for throwing the seeds against an annular impact band to crack the hull. The rotor consists of a disc with radial blades on the surface thereof which define channels for orienting the seeds so that they are ejected like spinning saucers and strike the impact ring at their fault lines. The radial blades may also include a sweeping fin to clear the path of seed portions which might interfere with the impacting of the seeds.
Also for reference, Int’l Pub. No. WO 2017174147 A1 discloses a crusher comprising a main frame (1), and a crushing head (3) mounted upon a main shaft, wherein a crushing gap (G) is formed between an outer surface of the crushing head (3) and an inner circumferential surface of a mantle (9) provided within the main frame (1), and wherein the crusher further comprises at least one protective liner (10, 20, 80) which is releasably fitted within the crusher, at least a part of an outwardly directed surface of the protective liner (10, 20, 80) constituting a wear surface, characterized in that the at least one protective liner (10, 20, 80) comprises an elastic material layer (16) and wear resistant inserts (18) retained by the elastic material layer (16), wherein outwardly directed surfaces of the wear resistant inserts (18) form part of the wear surface of the protective liner (10, 20, 80).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights