Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 12/9/2024 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 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 1-9 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.
In claim 1 the applicant claims the pulper is cylindrical (line 4) but later states that the container wall is triangular [lines 12-13]. These two descriptions of the wall conflict. A cylindric container will have a circular wall.
In claim 1 it is unclear the scope of “the pulper is free of additional containers located outside of the container” is. It is not clear how containers not part of the pulper affect the structure of the claimed pulper.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the container" in lines 7-8 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant earlier used “a cylindrical container”. Nota bene: this and other antecedent basis rejections can be fixed by deleting “cylindrical”.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1 and are similarly rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the container" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant earlier used “a cylindrical container”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the container" in lines 4-5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant earlier used “a cylindrical container”.
In claim 7 the applicant claims the pulper is cylindrical (line 4) but later states that the container wall has rounded corner regions [lines 10-11]. These two descriptions of the wall conflict. A cylindric container will have a fully circular wall without rounded corner regions.
In claim 7 “between 1 and 10” or “a value lying in between” mean the same exact thing therefore the claims is unclear to what it is claiming in the alternative
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the container" in lines 7 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant earlier used “a cylindrical container”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the container" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant earlier used “a cylindrical container”.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012113470 BREITSCHUH et al., hereinafter BREITSCHUH.
As for claim 1, BREITSCHUH discloses a pulper (1) [abstract] with a rotor (19) [Figure 1]. The pulper has a side-wall (13) [Figure 1]. The side wall (13) can be a convex polygon [0008]. The polygon can be regular [0009]. A regular polygon is defined as having all sides equal and all angles equal. The corners of the polygon are rounded [0008] and convex therefore it is the Examiners position that the flow deflection will be less than 90 degrees. There are no additional containers.
The corners can be 3 to 10 and therefore includes a triangle [0010] making a prima facie case of obviousness.
As for claim 2, BREITSCHUH does not disclose how rounded the corner is and therefore does not excitedly disclose the ratio between the diameter and the radius of curvature. However, the shape of the rounded corner is a result effective variable. BREITSCHUH discloses that compressions occur at corners. The more circular the shape the difference between the minim and maximum gap decrease [0010]. Therefore at the time of the invention it would be obvious to optimize the shape of the corners/degree of rounding to optimize the stroke of the device. Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)].
As for claim 3, BREITSCHUH discloses a rotor (17) that runs parallel to the longitudinal axis (15) of the container [Figures 1 and 2].
As for claim 4, BREITSCHUH discloses corners of the polygon of the container wall are rounded [0008] and therefore there would not be any edges. BREITSCHUH additionally states the walls are smooth.
As for claim 5, as per above the BREITSCHUH discloses a polygon and the Examiner has argued that triangular is obvious. BREITSCHUH discloses corners of the polygon of the container wall are rounded [0008]. The method of making the apparatus is not limiting and only the final claimed structure is limiting.
As for claim 6, BREITSCHUH discloses a flat edge side wall (13) [Figure 1]. This claim only limits the wall when it is curved.
As for claim 7, BREITSCHUH discloses a pulper (1) [abstract] with a rotor (19) [Figure 1]. The pulper has a side-wall (13) [Figure 1]. The side wall (13) can be a convex polygon [0008]. The polygon can be regular [0009]. A regular polygon is defined as having all sides equal and all angles equal. The corners of the polygon are rounded [0008].
The corners can be 3 to 10 [0010]. This meets the claim which claims 1 or 2 rounded corners because comprising one or two corners also includes 3-10 corners. BREITSCHUH does not disclose how rounded the corner is and therefore does not excitedly disclose the ratio between the diameter and the radius of curvature. However, the shape of the rounded corner is a result effective variable. BREITSCHUH discloses that compressions occur at corners. The more circular the shape the difference between the minim and maximum gap decrease [0010]. Therefore at the time of the invention it would be obvious to optimize the shape of the corners/degree of rounding to optimize the stroke of the device. Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)].
As for claim 8, BREITSCHUH discloses the body can be tapered [0014]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2012113470A BREITSCHUH et al., hereinafter BREITSCHUH, in view of U.S. 2011/0024534A WILJAN et al., hereinafter WILJAN.
As for claim 9, BREITSCHUH teaches the features as per above including a rotor (19) that is driven by motor (35) in the pulper (1) [Figure 1 and 2]. BREITSCHUH does not disclose controlling the rotor of the pulper.
WILJAN discloses controlling the power to a motor [0014] and the speed of the motor [abstract] of a pulper. The controller controls to as predetermined load current [0012]. When this predetermined load current is exceeded the motor reverses itself to unclog to pulper. At the time of the invention it would be prima facie obvious to apply the known motor controller of WILJAN to the pulper motor of BREITSCHUH. The person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so by WILJAN to prevent the pulper from getting clogged and to regulate the throughput to be more consistent [0178].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J CALANDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:45 AM -4:15 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571)270-7457. 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.
ANTHONY J. CALANDRA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/Anthony Calandra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights