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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (encompassing claims 1, 3-6, 10, 13-14, 16, 18) in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Regarding the information disclosure statement filed 7/11/2024, the document referred to as “DE 3183371” has been corrected to “EP 3183371” according to the provided foreign document. Further, the document “US 6430378” has not been considered as the name of the patentee or applicant does not match the published patent.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13:
Claim 13 depends on claim 2, which has been canceled; it is interpreted that claim 13 depends from claim 1, and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
“the working direction” should be amended to read “a working direction”
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.
Claim 1 is 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, the briquette strand is not positively recited. Since claim 1 requires an apparatus for cutting a briquette strand, it is interpreted that limitations to the briquette strand itself are drawn to the intended use of the apparatus, and are therefore not required elements of the claim. That is, the device must merely be capable of acting on the workpiece as recited.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otawa (JP 59153599).
Regarding claim 1, Otawa discloses an apparatus for cutting a briquette strand that has a succession of longitudinally spaced and transversely extending rows (briquettes 21 are formed in longitudinal and transverse rows; see figs. 1A-1C) that each have at least three briquettes connected via transverse material webs (briquettes 21 are connected via a web of material; see figs. 1A and 1B), the apparatus comprising: a movable beater assembly (strand divider 10; see figs. 1A and 1B) having a plurality of rows each of at least two beater teeth next to one another (strand divider 10 comprises a plurality of rows of at least two rotating blades 18 adjacent to one another; see fig. 1A), and a feeder (chute 8; see fig. 1A) supplying the briquette strand to the beater assembly in a longitudinal transport direction (chute 8 supplies briquettes 21 to strand divider 10 in the transport direction; see pg. 3 and fig. 1A) and having an output end provided with a striking edge (at the end of chute 8 nearest to strand divider 10, a striking edge is formed; see fig. 1A) and thereat or therebelow at least one spaced lug (the striking edge formed by the end of chute 8 is formed at plate 17; see fig. 1A) such that each row of beater teeth of the beater assembly strikes off the briquette strand supplied by the feeder on the one hand at the striking edge a single one of the transverse briquette rows and on the other hand the lugs subdivide the struck-off briquette row into individual briquettes (the strand of briquettes 21 is struck apart into individual briquettes 21 by plate 17 and rotating blades 18; see pg. 4 and fig. 1A).
Otawa does not explicitly disclose at least three beater teeth next to one another and at least two spaced lugs next to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Otawa to include as many or as few lugs/beater teeth as needed depending on the number of rows of briquettes since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). As demonstrated by Otawa, one beater tooth (rotating blade 18) is required for each longitudinal row of briquettes; likewise, one lug (plate 17) is required for each two longitudinal rows of briquettes (see fig. 1B). In the instant case, adding an additional beater tooth/lug would allow for more briquettes to be broken at a time, thereby increasing the amount of individual briquettes that can be produced at once. Therefore, in order to improve production and efficiency of the process, such a modification would be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein the beater assembly is a rotationally driven beater drum (strand divider 10 includes rotor 19 which is rotated by a power device; see pg. 4) or has such a beater drum whose outer surface carries a plurality of the transverse rows each with at least three beater teeth next to one another (as modified, each of the plurality of transverse rows contain at least three rotating blades 18 formed on the outer surface of rotor 19; see fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 4, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein a number of the beater teeth in each of the rows of teeth of the beater assembly is one greater than a number of the lugs on the feeder (as modified, there are three rotating blades 18 in each row and two plates 17 at the end of chute 8; see figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 5, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein the number of beater teeth in each row of teeth of the beater assembly is equal to the number of briquettes in each of the briquette rows (as modified, the number of rotating blades 18 in each row is equivalent to the number of briquette rows; see figs. 1B and 1C); and/or the number of the lugs of the feeder is smaller by one than the number of briquettes in the transverse briquette rows (as modified, one fewer plate 17 is required than the number of briquette rows, since plate 17 is responsible for separating rows; see figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 6, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein for each of the material webs between adjacent briquettes of a briquette row there is a respective lug (as modified, there is a plate 17 formed between each row of briquettes 21; see fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 10, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein at least an inner tooth between two outer teeth can pass between two adjacent lugs (as modified to include at least three rotating blades 18 per row and two plates 17, the center rotating blade 18 will pass between two plates 17; see fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 16, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses wherein for subdividing a briquette strand with briquette rows that each have four briquettes next to one another, the beater assembly has three beater teeth and the feeder has two lugs, each tooth being associated with a respective briquette of a briquette row (as modified, strand divider 10 includes at least three rotating blades 18 and chute 8 include at least two plates 17; see figs. 1A-1C) and each lug being aligned with a respective material web between two adjacent briquettes (each plate 17 is aligned between each row of briquettes 21; see fig. 1C).
Otawa as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the beater assembly has four beater teeth and the feeder has three lugs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otawa to include four beater teeth and three lugs since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that including additional beater teeth/lugs allows for more rows of briquettes to be processed at a time. Therefore, it would be obvious to include additional beater teeth/lugs in order to increase productivity.
Regarding claim 18, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified further discloses a system for making briquettes, the system comprising: at least one briquetting press (a pair of forming rolls 3 each comprise briquette holes 3a, which are configured to form strips of briquettes 21; see pg. 3and fig. 1A) with which a briquette strand according to claim 1 can be produced continuously (strips of briquettes are formed and separated into individual briquettes 21 continuously; see pg. 10 and fig. 1A) and at least one apparatus according to claim 1 downstream of the briquetting press (strand divider 10 is located downstream of forming rolls 3; see fig. 1A) for cutting the briquettes strand emerging from the briquetting press (strand divider 10 comprises rotating blades 18 for separating briquettes 21; see pg. 4 and fig. 1A).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otawa (JP 59153599) in view of Judd (US 3202369).
Regarding claim 13, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Otawa as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the lugs is offset relative to one or several other lugs in the working direction.
Judd discloses wherein at least one of the lugs is offset relative to one or several other lugs in the working direction (knife holders 34 (which are interpreted as corresponding to the lugs) are staggered along the working direction; see col. 4, lines 54-58 and fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Otawa in view of Judd to make at least one of the lugs offset to another. Judd discloses an arrangement of lugs (knife holders 34) which are offset relative to one another to reduce load on the machine (see col. 4, lines 64-65). Such a modification could be applied to the modified device of Otawa in order to provide the same benefit (i.e., severing strands separately to reduce load). Specifically, it is interpreted that this benefit is provided even if the lugs are located on the feeder as discussed above (wherein the load is applied to the feeder as opposed to a roller).
Regarding claim 14, Otawa as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13 as described in the rejection above.
Judd further discloses wherein an inner central lug is downstream or upstream of the outer lugs preceding or following next in the working direction (at least one of the inner knife holders 34 is located downstream/upstream relative to the outer knife holders 34 in the working direction; see fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 7622071 to Lee, drawn to an apparatus for manufacturing compacted irons; US 5666638 to Bergendahl, drawn to a process for producing sponge iron briquettes from fine ore; US 3713763 to Harris, drawn to a briquet breaker means; and AU 2002301887 to Hirsch, drawn to a method for hot granulating metal-containing substance particles, such as sponge iron.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights