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 .
Specification
The title of the invention contains a grammatical or typographical error; specifically, “Rotary Di saggregator”. 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 1-2, 11, 13-16, and 18 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.
Regarding Claim 1: Claim 1 recites the phrase "such as an excavator". The phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the phrase “such as an excavator” will be disregarded as not material to the claimed invention.
Further, claim 1 recites the phrase “a support structure which can be connected to a movable arm”. The phrase “which can be” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the connection is required as part of the claimed invention, or if it is an optional or generally possible element which is not required as part of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret this connection to be required as part of the claim invention.
Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2 recites the limitation "the end". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret "the end" to be the same "an end of the rotary disaggregator opposite the connection plate”, as it is the only “end” defined in claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends.
Regarding Claim 11: Claim 11 recites the limitation “preferably of the epicyclic type”. The phrase “preferably” recites no positive application and fails to define a clear boundary of the scope, and is therefore indefinite. It is unclear whether the preferred elements recited are necessary to the subject matter or its embodiments. For the purposes of examination, the phrase “preferably of the epicyclic type” will be considered an optional element not required as necessary to the claimed invention, and therefore will be disregarded as not material to the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13: Claim 13 recites the limitation “which is intended to” at multiple points in the claim. The phrase “which is intended to” recites no positive application and fails to define a clear boundary of the scope, and is therefore indefinite. It is unclear whether the intended elements recited are necessary to the subject matter or its embodiments. Examiner will interpret instances of “intended to” as necessary to the function of the invention.
Regarding Claim 14: Claim 14 recites the element “a rotary disaggregator” in the preamble of the claim. It is unclear whether this rotary disaggregator is the same rotary disaggregator previously defined and set forth in previous claims, and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret the “a rotary disaggregator” as the same rotary disaggregator previously set forth in claims upon which claim 14 depends.
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the following: “The rotary disaggregator according to claim 1 when dependent on claim 8, wherein…”. It is unclear whether claim 15 is meant to depend from and inherit the language of claim 1 or claim 8, and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret claim 15 to depend from claim 8, as it provides a necessary level of antecedent basis for the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the limitation “which is intended to” at multiple points in the claim. The phrase “which is intended to” recites no positive application and fails to define a clear boundary of the scope, and is therefore indefinite. It is unclear whether the intended elements recited are necessary to the subject matter or its embodiments. Examiner will interpret instances of “intended to” as necessary to the function of the invention.
Regarding Claim 18: Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the arm comprises a side…”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the arm” refers to the support arm or the machine arm as defined in claims upon which claim 18 depends. For the purposes of examination, examiner will interpret “the arm” to indicate “the support arm” as previously defined.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mannikko as part of FI 124960 B, hereinafter referred to as Mannikko.
Regarding Claim 1: Mannikko teaches of a rotary disaggregator for an operating machine comprising:
a support structure connected to a movable arm of the operating machine (Fig. 1-3, a support structure (comprising submersible arm 1 and fastening means 10) secures the device to a working boom of the operating machine),
a rotating drum comprising a plurality of teeth and a drive unit which is configured to rotate the rotating drum about a rotation axis (Fig. 1, drums 2 comprise a plurality of blades 11 and hydraulic motors 3 configured to rotate drums 2 about a central rotation axis),
wherein the rotating drum has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 1, drums 2 are shown to be conical),
the support structure comprising a connection plate which defines a connection plane with respect to the operating machine (Fig. 1-3, fastening means 10 defines a connection plane with respect to the working boom of the device),
the connection plate being configured to fix the rotary disaggregator to the arm of the operating machine (Page 2, line 12-17, the fastening means 10 fixes the device to the working boom) in such a manner that the connection plane is substantially perpendicular to the arm of the operating machine (Page 1, line 12-16, the connection to a work machine being perpendicular between fastening means 10 and a working boom is known and described as part of applicant’s patent publication FI-107629, of which figure 1 is shown below for completeness),
and comprising a support arm, on which the rotating drum is rotatably supported (Fig. 1, drums 2 are rotatably mounted on the submersible arm 1 via body 14),
the rotation axis being inclined with respect to the connection plane in such a manner that a generatrix of the frustoconical shape defined by the rotating drum is essentially parallel with the connection plane (Fig. 1, the rotation axis is shown to be inclined with respect to the connection plane, wherein the lower surface of the drum defines a generatrix essentially parallel with the connection plane),
the generatrix being arranged at an end of the rotary disaggregator opposite the connection plate (Fig. 1, the generatrix is at the end of the device opposite the fastening means 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
772
1206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FI-107629, Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 2: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the rotating drum defines a base surface which is opposite along the rotation axis with respect to the end, and comprises a plurality of additional teeth (Fig. 1, drum 2 defines a base surface opposite along the rotation axis with respect to the end defined by the generatrix, comprising additional blades 11).
Regarding Claim 3: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the frustoconical shape defined by the rotating drum as a conicity with an angle which is substantially equal to double an angle of inclination which is formed between the rotation axis and the connection plane (Page 2, line 27-29, the inclination of the rotation axes of the drums is half the cone angle as defined by the shape of the drums 2 -- indicating that the cone shape is defined by double the angle formed by the inclination of the rotation axes).
Regarding Claim 7: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the teeth define a rotation trajectory with a diameter equal to or greater than an extent of the support plate in a direction perpendicular to the generatrix (Fig. 1, the blades 11 define a rotation trajectory with a diameter greater than the extent of the support plate perpendicular to the generatrix).
Regarding Claim 8: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the rotating drum defines a greater diameter and a smaller diameter (Fig. 1, drums 2 comprise a greater diameter at the proximal end and a smaller diameter at the distal end).
Regarding Claim 9: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 8.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the teeth which are arranged in the region of the greater diameter of the rotating drum do not project with respect to the connection plate along the direction parallel with the generatrix (Fig. 1, the blades 11 at the distal end of drums 2 define a rotation trajectory such that the ends of blades 11 project laterally with respect to the fastening means 10 in a direction parallel with the generatrix, as shown in the figure).
Regarding Claim 10: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 8.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the teeth which are arranged in the region of the greater diameter of the rotating drum do not project with respect to the connection plate along the direction parallel with the generatrix (Fig. 1, the blades 11 at the proximal end of drums 2 are fixed on a surface shown to be non-parallel to the generatrix, causing the ends of the blades 11 to project with respect to the fastening means 10 in a direction not parallel to the generatrix).
Regarding Claim 15: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 8.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the teeth project outwardly from the rotating drum in the region of the smaller diameter (Fig. 1, blades 11 project outwardly from the surface of drum 2 at the distal end).
Regarding Claim 17: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a single drum (Fig. 1, the assembly comprises an independent left side and right side, each side of the apparatus comprising a single drum 2 attached to the submersible arm 1 via body 14)
Regarding Claim 18: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the arm comprises a side which is arranged in the axially opposite direction to the rotating drum and which defines an external surface of the arm (Fig. 1. submersible arm 1 comprises a side which is arranged axially opposite to the drum 2, which defines an external surface of the submersible arm 1).
Regarding Claim 19: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 18.
Mannikko further teaches wherein the external surface of the lateral arm extends substantially perpendicularly to the connection plane (Fig. 1, submersible arm 1 extends perpendicularly to fastening means 10).
Regarding Claim 20: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 18.
Mannikko further teaches wherein an end of the rotating drum is aligned with the side along a direction parallel with the generatrix or projects with respect to the side along a direction parallel with the generatrix (Fig. 1, the lower end of drum 2, positioned opposite fastening means 10 and in line with the generatrix, is aligned with the side of submersible arm 1 in a direction parallel to the generatrix, and projects with respect to the side of submersible arm 1 with respect to the generatrix).
Claims 1, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ahr et al as part of WO 2021239225 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ahr.
Regarding Claim 1: Ahr teaches of a rotary disaggregator for an operating machine, such as an excavator, comprising
a support structure which can be connected to a movable arm of the operating machine (Fig. 1/Fig. 7, main element 20 and a horizontal plate at the top end of main element 20 is coupled to the arm of vehicle 1),
a rotating drum comprising a plurality of teeth and a drive unit which is configured to rotate the rotating drum about a rotation axis (Fig. 1, first cutting drum 31 and second cutting drum 32 comprise a plurality of cutter picks 35 and are operatively connected to drive system 40 , which is configured to rotate the cutting drums 31 and 32),
wherein the rotating drum has a frustoconical shape (Fig. 1, cutting drums 31 and 32 are conical in shape),
the support structure comprising a connection plate which defines a connection plane with respect to the operating machine (Fig. 1, the horizontal plate at the top of the main element 20 defines a connection plane with respect to vehicle 1),
the connection plate being configured to fix the rotary disaggregator to the arm of the operating machine in such a manner that the connection plane is substantially perpendicular to the arm of the operating machine (Fig. 1/Fig. 7, the horizontal plate is configured to fix the drum cutter arrangement 10, such that the connection plane is arranged perpendicular to the arm of vehicle 1),
and comprising a support arm, on which the rotating drum is rotatably supported (Fig. 1, cutting drums 31 and 32 are supported on main element 20),
the rotation axis being inclined with respect to the connection plane in such a manner that a generatrix of the frustoconical shape defined by the rotating drum is essentially parallel with the connection plane (Fig. 1, the cutting drums 31 and 32 are inclined with respect to the connection plane at an angle beta; the operational end 63 of cutting drums 31 and 32 are shown to be parallel to the connection plane),
the generatrix being arranged at an end of the rotary disaggregator opposite the connection plate (Fig. 1, the operational end 63, opposite the horizontal plate, defines the generatrix).
Regarding Claim 11: Ahr teaches of the assembly described in claim 1.
Ahr further teaches wherein the drive unit comprises a hydraulic motor and a reduction gear (Fig. 2; Page 8, line 20-30, the drive system 40 comprises a hydraulic motor 41 and gear device 42 to transmit power to the first and second cutting drums 31 and 32),
wherein the hydraulic motor has a rotation axis which is inclined with respect to the rotation axis of the rotating drum (Fig. 2, the hydraulic motor 41 has an axis of rotation at an incline relative to the axes 33 and 34 of cutting drums 31 and 32 respectively),
the reduction gear having a rotation axis which coincides with the rotation axis of the rotating drum (Fig. 2, second bevel gears 72 are connected to the axes 33 and 34 of cutting drums 31 and 32 respectively).
Regarding Claim 12: Ahr teaches of the apparatus described in claim 11.
Ahr further teaches wherein the rotating drum is hollow, the reduction gear being received inside a cavity which is defined by the rotating drum (Fig. 2, second bevel gears 72 are shown to be disposed at least partially within cutting drums 31 and 32).
Regarding Claim 17: Ahr teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Ahr further teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a single drum (Fig. 1-3, the assembly comprises an independent first and second side defined by first cutting drum 31 and second cutting drum 32, each comprising a single drum which independently connect to drive system 40).
Regarding Claim 18: Ahr teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Ahr further teaches wherein the arm comprises a side which is arranged in the axially opposite direction to the rotating drum and which defines an external surface of the arm (Ahr: Fig. 1, main element 20 comprises a side which is axially opposite cutter drum 31, and defines an external surface of main element 20).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannikko in view of JP 2003040678, hereinafter referred to as JP2003.
Regarding Claim 4: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 3.
While Mannikko does teach of the rotating drums being positioned at an inclined angle relative to the connecting plane, no specific angle or range is recited in the disclosure.
JP2003 teaches of a rotary disaggregator, comprising a connection plate defining a connection plane (Fig. 1, mounting flange 2A is shown to comprise a flat plate, which defines a connection plane to the arm portion of a work machine), a rotating drum comprising a plurality of teeth, wherein a rotation axis of the rotating drum is inclined with respect to the connection plane (Fig. 4, rotary drums 4a are provided with a plurality of cutting picks 13, where drums 4a are inclined relative to the defined connection plane),
wherein the angle of inclination is between 10 degrees and 30 degrees (JP2003: Paragraph 18, the angle of inclination is about 20 degrees, which falls within the range of 10 to 30 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified angle range of Mannikko with the specific angle of 20 degrees as taught by JP2003. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a drum inclination angle between 10 and 30 degrees relative to the connection plane of the apparatus (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 5: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 3.
While Mannikko does teach of the rotating drums being positioned at an inclined angle relative to the connecting plane, no specific angle or range is recited in the disclosure.
JP2003 teaches of a rotary disaggregator, comprising a connection plate defining a connection plane (Fig. 1, mounting flange 2A is shown to comprise a flat plate, which defines a connection plane to the arm portion of a work machine), a rotating drum comprising a plurality of teeth, wherein a rotation axis of the rotating drum is inclined with respect to the connection plane (Fig. 4, rotary drums 4a are provided with a plurality of cutting picks 13, where drums 4a are inclined relative to the defined connection plane),
wherein the angle of inclination is between 15 degrees and 25 degrees (JP2003: Paragraph 18, the angle of inclination is about 20 degrees, which falls within the range of 10 to 30 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified angle range of Mannikko with the specific angle of 20 degrees as taught by JP2003. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a drum inclination angle between 15 and 25 degrees relative to the connection plane of the apparatus (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claims 6, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannikko in view of Kwon as part of WO 2021215862 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kwon.
Regarding Claim 6: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko does not teach of the support structure comprises a pair of tapered connection plates which form a pair of walls of the support structure and which extend from the support plate towards the support arm, tapering in a direction away from the support plate.
Kwon teaches of a rotary disaggregator comprising a support structure comprising an arm and a connection plate (Kwon: Fig. 2, connection frame 110 comprises connecting member 111 which comprises a horizontal connection plate, and frame body 112 coupled to the connection member 111),
wherein the support structure comprises a pair of tapered connection plates which form a pair of walls of the support structure and which extend from the support plate towards the support arm, tapering in a direction away from the support plate (Kwon: Fig. 2, connecting frame 110 is demonstrated to comprise a pair of tapered connection plates, which taper towards frame body 112 and away from the connecting member 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the straight connecting arm structures of Mannikko with the tapered connecting arm structure taught by Kwon, as to change the shape of an element without evidence that the particular configuration is significant would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed (MPEP 2144.04, Subsection IV, B)
Regarding Claim 13: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Mannikko does not teach of any specific mounting means or connective element regarding the blades 11.
Kwon teaches of a rotary disaggregator comprising a rotary drum comprising a plurality of teeth (Kwon: Fig. 2, drum 130 comprises a plurality of cutters 140 on the outer surface),
wherein the teeth comprise a coupling element which is connected to an external mantle of the rotating drum and a cutting element which is supported by the coupling element (Fig. 2, cutter 140 is disposed on the exterior of drum body 133 of drum 130 via cutter fixing part 141)
and which comes into contact with a surface which is to be processed (Page 1, paragraph 2-4, the construction machine is used for rock crushing, via cutters disposed on cutter drums),
the coupling element being configured so as to support the cutting element in such a manner that it extends in an inclined direction with respect to a direction which is normal to the external mantle (Page 5, paragraph 37, cutter 140 is positioned within cutter fixing part 141 at an inclination angle theta with respect to the tangent of drum 130's surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substate the unspecified connections of Mannikko with the specific coupling structures taught by Kwon to allow for a variety of cutting implements to be utilized (Kwon: Page 5, paragraph 37, a large number of cutters can be easily installed on the cutter fixing units 141). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a mounting structure to which teeth can be attached and exchanged (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 14: Mannikko in view of Kwon teaches of the apparatus described in claim 13.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 13, Kwon further teaches wherein the cutting element has an inclination with respect to a tangential direction of the mantle in the region of the coupling element between 20 degrees and 70 degrees (Page 5, paragraph 37, the inclination angle theta is between 20 and 50 degrees).
Regarding Claim 16: Mannikko teaches of the apparatus described in claim 2.
Mannikko does not teach of any specific mounting means or connective element regarding the blades 11.
Kwon teaches of a rotary disaggregator comprising a rotary drum comprising a plurality of teeth (Kwon: Fig. 2, drum 130 comprises a plurality of cutters 140 on the outer surface),
wherein the teeth comprise a respective coupling element which is connected to the base surface of the rotating drum (Fig. 2, cutter 140 is disposed on the exterior of drum body 133 of drum 130 via cutter fixing part 141)
and a respective cutting element which is supported by the respective coupling element and which comes into contact with the surface which is to be processed (Page 1, paragraph 2-4, the construction machine is used for rock crushing, via cutters disposed on cutter drums),
the respective coupling element being configured so as to support the cutting element in such a manner that it extends in an inclined direction with respect to a plane which is defined by the base surface (Page 5, paragraph 37, cutter 140 is positioned within cutter fixing part 141 at an inclination angle theta with respect to the tangent of drum 130's surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substate the unspecified connections of the additional teeth of Mannikko with the specific coupling structures taught by Kwon to allow for a variety of cutting implements to be utilized (Kwon: Page 5, paragraph 37, a large number of cutters can be easily installed on the cutter fixing units 141). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a mounting structure to which teeth can be attached and exchanged (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahr in view of Kwon.
Regarding Claim 21: Ahr teaches of the apparatus described in claim 18.
PNG
media_image2.png
936
1174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Ahr does state that the drive system is disposed within the main element 20, and Fig. 1 of Ahr appears to demonstrate a panel or cover to allow access to drive system 40 (see annotated Fig. 1, element A of Ahr below), no explicit mention of this cover is made in the text of the disclosure.
Ahr: Annotated Fig. 1
Kwon teaches of a rotary disaggregator comprising a support structure comprising an arm and a connection plate (Kwon: Fig. 2, connection frame 110 comprises connecting member 111 which comprises a horizontal connection plate, and frame body 112 coupled to the connection member 111),
a rotary drum comprising a plurality of teeth (Kwon: Fig. 2, drum 130 comprises a plurality of cutters 140 on the outer surface),
and a drive unit which is configured to rotate the rotating drum about a rotation axis (Kwon: Fig. 1, hydraulic motor 120 is operatively connected to rotate rotary drum 120 about a rotation axis),
wherein the arm comprises a side which is arranged in the axially opposite direction to the rotating drum and which defines an external surface of the arm (Kwon: frame body 112 comprises a side axially opposite the rotary drum, defined by the position of panel 112i).
wherein the side comprises a lateral wall and a removable covering plate, the lateral wall having an opening which is configured so as to allow access to the drive unit and to be able to be closed by means of the removable covering plate (Kwon, Fig. 1, panel 112i acts as a removable covering plate, by which removing panel 112i allows access to the drive unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the unspecified opening suggested by the figures of Ahr with the specific covering panel disclosed by Kwon to allow an operator to access the drive unit (Kwon: Fig. 1, panel 112i is positioned to enclose the hydraulic motor 120 within frame body 112). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of allowing an operator to access the drive unit of the rotary disaggregator (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Posch as part of EP 0922811 A2 teaches of a rotary disaggregator for an operating machine, comprising a support structure which is connected to a movable arm of the operating machine, a rotating drum comprising a plurality of teeth and a drive unit which is configured to rotate the rotating drum about a rotation axis, wherein the rotating drum has a frustoconical shape, the support structure comprising a connection plate which defines a connection plane with respect to the operating machine, the connection plate being configured to fix the rotary disaggregator to the arm of the operating machine in such a manner that the connection plane is substantially perpendicular to the arm of the operating machine, and comprising a support arm, on which the rotating drum is rotatably supported, the rotation axis being inclined with respect to the connection plane in such a manner that a generatrix of the frustoconical shape defined by the rotating drum is essentially parallel with the connection plane, the generatrix being arranged at an end of the rotary disaggregator opposite the connection plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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 J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights