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, 10 and 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at least one shredding roller which can rotate about an axis” should be changed to “at least one shredding roller is configured to be rotated about an axis”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a feed means for feeding material to be shredded to the shredding roller” should be changed to “a feed means for feeding the material to be shredded to the shredding roller”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body, which are spaced apart from one another” should be changed to “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body, the shredding tools are spaced apart from one another”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “of material to be shredded is produced” should be changed to “of the material to be shredded is produced”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at least one region than in another region” should be changed to “at least one region than in another region of the plurality of regions”.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “a blade which can be connected” should be changed to “a blade is configured to be connected”.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “A shredding roller for a shredding device for shredding material to be shredded, for use in the field of recycling and waste processing, with a basic roller body rotatable about an axis of rotation and with shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body at a distance from one another and in a plurality of rows” should be changed to “A shredding roller for a shredding device for shredding material to be shredded, for use in the field of recycling and waste processing, the shredding roller comprising: a basic roller body rotatable about an axis of rotation and shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body at a distance from one another, and the shredding tools arranged in a plurality of rows”.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “at least one region than in another region” should be changed to “at least one region than in another region of the plurality of regions”.
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 and 4-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the field" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 10-11 the phrase “extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction on the basic roller body” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element is “extending obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction on the basic roller body”.
The term “larger quantity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger quantity” 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 18-19 the phrase “wherein different distances are provided between directly adjacent shredding tools of a row” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “adjacent shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “a row” is the same as or different from “a plurality of rows” that recited in line 9 of the same claim 1
The term “essentially” in claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same width" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 201the phrase “a larger number of shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “shredding tools” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 18 of the same claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, in line 23 the phrase “wherein at least three regions of essentially the same width” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein at least three regions of essentially the same width” is the same as or different from “wherein a plurality of regions of essentially the same width are provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 19 of the same claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, in line 24 the phrase “wherein the regions” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein the regions” is the same as or different from “wherein a plurality of regions of essentially the same width are provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 19 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “wherein the regions” is the same as or different from “at least three regions” that recited in line 22 of the same claim 1
Regarding claim 1, in line 24 the phrase “a number of shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a number of shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “a number of shredding tools” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 18 of the same claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, in line 25 the phrase “larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region ” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “ larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region ” is the same as or different from “shredding tools provided on the basic roller body” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1; it is unclear if “ larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region ” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 18 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “ larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region ” is the same as or different from “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in at least one region” that recited in line 20 of the same claim 1
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two further regions" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the middle region" in lines 26-27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, in lines 26-27 the phrase “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 1; it is unclear if “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 18 of the same claim 1; and it is unclear if “ a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in at least one region” that recited in line 20 of the same claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the further regions" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the further region" in lines 27-28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 26-27 the phrase “the first and the further regions facing the second end than in the further region” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the first and the further regions facing the second end than in the further region”.
Claims 4-17 and 19 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-9, the phrase “adjacent shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “adjacent shredding tools” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claims 4-5 and 7-9 depend from.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " the same row" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-9, the phrase “a row” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a row” is the same as or different from “a plurality of rows” that recited in claim 1 which claims 4-5 and 7-9 depend from.
Regarding claim 6, in line 2 the phrase “the rows” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the rows” is the same as or different from “a plurality of rows” that recited in claim 1 which claim 6 depends from.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the same design" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the same row" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “at least one shredding tool” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “at least one shredding tools” is the same as or different from “provided on the basic roller body” that recited in claim 1 which claim 8 depends from; and
it is unclear if “at least one shredding tool” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claim 8 depends from.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the immediately " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the same row" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the distance" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the distance" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same row" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “provided on the basic roller body” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from; and
it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claim 10 depends from.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the outer casing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first and/or second end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “at least on one side with the first and/or second end” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if what is meant by “at least on one side with the first and/or second end”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the first and/or second end” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the first and/or second end” is the same as or different from “the first end” that recited in claim 1 which claim 12 depends from.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the respective end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the respective end” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the respective end” is the same as or different from “the first and/or second end” that recited in claim 12 which claim 13 depends from.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the shredding tool” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “provided on the basic roller body” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from; and
it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the circumference" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “the shredding tool” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “provided on the basic roller body” that recited in claim 1 which claim 15 depends from; and
it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claim 15 depends from.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, in line 4 the phrase “the outer circumference” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the outer circumference” is the same as or different from “the circumference” that recited in line 3 of the same claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “the shredding tool” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “provided on the basic roller body” that recited in claim 1 which claim 16 depends from; and
it is unclear if “the shredding tools” is the same as or different from “directly adjacent shredding tools” that recited in claim 1 which claim 16 depends from.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “and which is located” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element “is located”.
The lack of clear transitional phrases in independent claim 18 render the claims indefinite as it cannot clearly be determined where the preamble ends and the body of the claim starts. See MPEP 2111.03.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the field" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the longitudinal direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, in line 6 the phrase “running obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction of the basic roller body” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear which element is “running obliquely with respect to the longitudinal direction of the basic roller body”.
Regarding claim 18, in lines 8-9 the phrase “wherein different distances are provided between directly adjacent shredding tools of a row” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “adjacent shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “a row” is the same as or different from “a plurality of rows” that recited in line 5 of the same claim 18
The term “essentially” in claim 18 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
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the same width" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, in line 11 the phrase “a larger number of shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “shredding tools” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in lines 8 of the same claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, in lines 13-14 the phrase “wherein at least three regions of essentially the same width” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein at least three regions of essentially the same width” is the same as or different from “wherein a plurality of regions of essentially the same width are provided on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 10-11 of the same claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, in line 14 the phrase “wherein the regions” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “wherein the regions” is the same as or different from “wherein a plurality of regions of essentially the same width are provided on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 10-11 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “wherein the regions” is the same as or different from “at least three regions” that recited in lines 13-14 of the same claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, in line 14 the phrase “a number of shredding tools” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a number of shredding tools” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “a number of shredding tools” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 18.
Regarding claim 18, in line 15 the phrase “larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region ” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 18; it is unclear if “ larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “ larger number of shredding tools is provided in a first region” is the same as or different from “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in at least one region” that recited in line 11 of the same claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first end" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the two further regions" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the middle region" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, in lines 16-17 the phrase “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “shredding tools arranged on the basic roller body” that recited in lines 3-4 of the same claim 18; it is unclear if “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “adjacent shredding tools” that recited in line 8 of the same claim 18; and it is unclear if “ a larger number of shredding tools is provided in the middle region” is the same as or different from “a larger number of shredding tools is provided in at least one region” that recited in line 11 of the same claim 18.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the further regions" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second end" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the further region" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, in lines 17-18 the phrase “the first and the further regions facing the second end than in the further region” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the first and the further regions facing the second end than in the further region”.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the closet prior arts are Coleman (US4711684A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited.
Claims 4-17 and 19 are depended from claim 1.
Claims 1 and 18 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