DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,917,179 to Graf.
Regarding claim 1, Graf teaches a hammer cage for a hammer mill (Figs. 1-3), comprising
a main part 20 with a bottom area and slots 26 for positioning hammers 25 in said hammer cage 20 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 2, Ln. 60 through, Col. 5, Ln. 10), and said bottom area comprises a surface that prevents any movement of the hammers 25 out of said hammer cage 20 through said bottom area (Figs. 2-3 show that the bottom of the cage 20 includes a surface that prevents the hammers 25 from moving out of the bottom), and wherein said main part 20 further comprises a front and a rear portion with respective openings 23, 28 for releasably arranging said hammer cage 20 in said hammer mill (Figs. 1-3; the front and rear are interpreted as the sides of the hammer cage 20 that includes openings 23 and openings 28, and openings 28 are present on both the front and rear sides to allow the cage to be arranged on a hammer mill, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the main part 20 comprises side areas (Figs. 2-3; the side areas are interpreted as generally the right and left sides of the cage 20, i.e., the left and right side of the cage on either side of a central axis running approximately where pin 24 is positioned), wherein in said side areas the slots 26 are provided for positioning hammers 25 in said hammer cage 20 (Fig. 3 shows that the slots are present on both the right and left sides of the cage 20).
Regarding claim 3, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the main part comprises a top area (Fig. 3 shows the top of the main part includes slots 26 for receiving the hammers 25), wherein in said top area the slots 26 are provided for positioning hammers 25 in said hammer cage 20 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 3 (Figs. 1-3), wherein between the slots 26 in the top area, intermediate portions are provided which extend from the top area to the bottom area (Figs. 2-3 show that there are intermediate portions, i.e., the solid material, between the slots that extend from the top to bottom).
Regarding claim 5, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said main part 20 is made from a single part (Figs. 2-3 show that the cage 20 is formed as a single piece in which the hammers 25 and various pins are inserted).
Regarding claim 6, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1, wherein said surface of said bottom area that prevents any movement of the hammers 25 out of said hammer cage 20 through said bottom area is a flat surface (Figs. 2-3 show that the bottom area includes a flat surface at the bottom of the block 20) comprising openings of a size that is too small for any hammer to penetrate (Figs. 2-3; Col. 2, Ln. 60 through Col. 3, Ln. 10; the bottom area includes openings to receive pins 29, and these openings are too small for the hammers to penetrate).
Regarding claim 8, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the front and rear portion of the main part are designed as lugs, respectively (Figs. 2-3; the portions of the front and rear side that include openings 28 are lugs, i.e., plates with openings to attach to another component).
Regarding claim 9, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said hammers 25 comprise at least one opening 27, respectively, that is aligned with the openings 23 of the front and rear portion of the main part 20 when the hammers 25 are arranged within the slots 26 of the hammer cage 20 (Figs. 2-3; Col. 2, Ln. 60 through Col. 3, Ln. 10; it is noted that the claims do not require these openings to be the same openings that attach the hammer cage to the hammer mill, and the front and rear portions include openings 23 that the openings 27 of the hammers 25 are aligned with to receive bar 24).
Regarding claim 11, Graf teaches a hammer mill (Fig. 1), comprising at least one hammer cage 20 according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Graf teaches the hammer mill according to claim 11 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the hammer mill comprises a plurality of hammer cages 20, each having the same outer dimensions (Figs. 1-2; Fig. 2 shows at least two hammer cages 20 having the same outer dimensions).
Regarding claim 13, Graf teaches the hammer mill according to claim 11 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said one or said plurality of hammer cages 20 are provided at a rotor which has a rotor shaft 12 and can be rotated around an axis R (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Lns. 27-59).
Regarding claim 14, Graf teaches the hammer mill according to claim 11 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said one or plurality of hammer cages 20 are provided in said hammer mill on at least one hammer pin 15 (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Lns. 27-59).
Regarding claim 15, Graf teaches the hammer mill according to claim 14 (Figs. 1-3), wherein said at least one hammer pin 15 is provided in opening of a rotor disc 14 and at least one segment disk 14 (Fig. 1; Col. 2, Lns. 27-59; the mill includes rotor discs 14, i.e., the outer discs, and segment discs 14, i.e., the discs between the outer rotor discs, and the hammer pin 15 passes through each of these discs).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf.
Regarding claim 7, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 1.
Graf fails to explicitly teach wherein the hammer cage comprises 6-12 slots. Graf teaches the cage 20 includes one or more slots (Figs. 2-3; Col. 2, Lns. 64-67; the block 20 includes one or more slots and the exemplary embodiment includes 3), which would include 6-12 slots as these are more than one.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of slots in the cage of Graf to include 6-12 slots as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (See P. 8, Lns. 6-11 stating that “the present invention is not particularly limited with respect to the number of slots and allows for broad variation”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf in view of US 2012/0286082 A1 to Tobler.
Regarding claim 10, Graf teaches the hammer cage according to claim 9 (Figs. 1-3).
Graf fails to explicitly teach wherein said hammers comprise at least one additional opening, respectively, that is configured to align with the openings of the front and rear portion of a further hammer cage when the hammers are arranged within the slots of the further hammer cage.
Tobler teaches a hammer cage 33 for a hammer mill and hammers 23 configured to be attached to the hammer cage 33 (Fig. 6; Para. [0049]) wherein the hammers include a first opening configured to attach to the cage 33 and a second opening configured to attach to the cage 33 (Fig. 6; Para. [0060]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hammers of Graf to include a second opening capable of attaching to a hammer cage as taught by Tobler so that the working end of the hammer may be adjusted to either end when one end of the hammer gets worn down (Tobler, Para. [0060]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated June 1, 2026, with respect to the objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Graf fails to teach “said bottom area comprises a surface that prevents any movement of the hammers out of said hammer cage through said bottom area” because Graf “relies primarily on a transverse locking bar (24), suspension pins (29) and centrifugal force… to keep the hammers/inserts (25) in place.” Remarks, PP. 5-8. Applicant further describes the unique features of their commercial product and features shown in the drawings (Id.) before further asserting that Graf “discloses no dedicated bottom surface that prevents the inserts from moving downward through the bottom of the cage.” Id. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive. First, it is noted that many of Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to a commercial product based on the claimed invention or describes features of the invention not recited in the claims (e.g., “Applicant’s dedicated bottom surface supports and precisely position each hammer individually within its slot” and “[t]his directly delivers the stated unique selling point of the commercial product, quick hammer change” on page 8 of the Remarks), and these arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Further, Applicant’s argument that Graf fails to teach a solid bottom surface is simply not accurate as Fig. 2 shows a cross section of the hammer including solid surfaces for the entire block 21 outside of the slots 26 for the hammers 25 on the top of the block and holes 19, 23 for receiving the bars 24, 29 that keep the hammers from moving out of the top of the block when they are rotating (Fig. 2; Col. 2, Ln. 61 through Col. 3, Ln. 10). Thus, Graf teaches a bottom area that comprises “a surface that prevents any movement of the hammers out of the said hammer cage through said bottom area.” This feature is shown unambiguously in the cross-sectional view in Fig. 2. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further provides arguments that are not directed to any rejection or position taken in the previous Office Action (Remarks, PP. 10-11 in a section titled Supplementary Argument), and these arguments are not persuasive as they do not address the rejection of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights