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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Claims 2 and 3: the lug is curved and/or has a thickness that tapers in the working direction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 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 claims 1-15, the term “and/or” is indefinite since it is unclear what components are included due to the term “and” or excluded due to the term “or”. For the purpose of examination in this Office Action, the Examiner reads the claim language with the term “or” which selects one limitation from the list of limitations since the term “or” defines an alternate or a choice. For example, when a person is offered tea OR coffee, if the tea is selected, then there is no coffee.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otawa et al. (JP1984-153599), hereinafter Otawa, in view of Jotter et al. (CA2,343,234), hereinafter Jotter, and Van der Galien (2014/0103152).
Regarding claim 1, Otawa teaches an apparatus for cutting a briquette strand that has a succession of longitudinally one after the other, contiguous and transversely extending briquette rows that each have next to one another at least three briquettes connected via material webs, the apparatus substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a movable beater assembly 19 having at least three beater teeth 18 transversely next to one another; and
a feeder 8 supplying the briquette strand to the beater assembly in a longitudinal
transport direction, wherein
the beater teeth of the beater assembly strike the briquette strand supplied by the feeder such that on the one hand a briquette row is struck off the briquette strand and on the other hand the struck-off briquette row is subdivided into individual briquettes,
the feeder has at an output end an impact edge for striking off a row of briquettes and below the impact edge at least two lugs (one lug 17) for separating the struck-off briquette row into individual briquettes, and at least one of the lugs is formed in such a way and/or is oriented such that a spacing is formed between this lug and the adjacent lug that widens in the transport direction.
See Figs. 1-4.
Otawa teaches the briquette strand having two columns of briquettes and the beater assembly having one lug 17. The lug 17 is positioned between two adjacent briquettes and functions as a counter tool for the beater teeth 18. Otawa does not teach the briquette strand having at least three columns and the beater assembly having at least two lugs.
Jotter teaches a briquette making machine making a briquette strand 14 having three columns of briquettes. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the machine in Otawa to products a briquette strand having at least three columns of briquettes as taught by Jotter for increasing productivity of the briquette making machine.
When an addition column of briquettes is added to the machine in Otawa, an additional lug 17 and an addition beater teeth 18 are added for breaking the briquettes in the new column.
To the degree the Applicant argues such modification is not obvious to one skilled in the art, Van der Galien teaches a breaking machine having a plurality of beater teeth 22 and a plurality of lugs 26 positioned between two adjacent beater teeth 22. See Figs. 9-10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the machine in Otawa a plurality of beater teeth and a plurality of lugs, each lug positioned between two adjacent beater teeth, for breaking briquettes from a briquette strand having at least three columns of briquettes for increasing productivity of the machine.
Regarding claim 15, Otawa teaches a system for making briquettes, the system comprising: at least one briquetting press 3 continuously producing at least a briquette strand, and at least one apparatus according to claim 1 is provided downstream of the briquetting press for subdividing the briquette strand emerging from the briquetting press.
See Figs. 1-4.
Regarding claim 2, the lug 17 being arranged obliquely best seen in Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 3, the second lug is obvious to one skilled in the art or taught by Van der Galien as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Otawa teaches the number of beater teeth greater than the number of lug, and satisfying the claimed mathematical equation.
Regarding claim 6, Otawa teaches a lug positioning between two adjacent briquettes in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 7, when the modified machine of Otawa has at least three columns of briquettes, additional teeth are provided on the drum for breaking the additional briquettes.
Regarding claim 8, when the modified machine of Otawa has at least three columns of briquettes, the one of the beater teeth passes through two adjacent lugs. See Figs. 8-10 in Van der Galien.
Regarding claims 9-11, Otawa teaches the beater teeth aligning with the briquettes and the lug aligning between the two adjacent briquettes. Where there are more than three columns of briquettes, the additional lugs and the beater teeth are arranged accordingly.
Regarding claim 12, the lug oriented at an angle is best seen in Fig. 3 in Otawa.
Regarding claim 13, the offsetting lugs are best seen in Fig. 10 in Van der Galien.
Regarding claim 14, at least three lugs are best seen in Fig. 10 in Van der Galien.
Regarding claim 16, Otawa teaches an apparatus for cutting a briquette strand that has a succession of longitudinally one after the other, contiguous briquette rows that each have next to one another at least three briquettes connected transversely via material webs, the apparatus substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a movable beater assembly 19 having at least three beater teeth 18 next to one another; and
a feeder 8 supplying the briquette strand to the beater assembly in a transport direction, wherein
the beater teeth of the beater assembly strike the briquette strand supplied by the feeder such that on the one hand a briquette row is struck off the briquette strand and on the other hand the struck-off briquette row is subdivided into individual briquettes,
the feeder has at an output end an impact edge for striking off a row of briquettes and below the impact edge at least two lugs (one lug 17) for separating the struck-off briquette row into individual briquettes, and
at least one of the lugs is oriented obliquely to the transport direction such that a spacing between this lug and the adjacent lug widens in the working direction.
Otawa teaches the briquette strand having two columns of briquettes and the beater assembly having one lug 17. The lug 17 is positioned between two adjacent briquettes and functions as a counter tool for the beater teeth 18. Otawa does not teach the briquette strand having at least three columns and the beater assembly having at least two lugs.
Jotter teaches a briquette making machine making a briquette strand 14 having three columns of briquettes. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the machine in Otawa to products a briquette strand having at least three columns of briquettes as taught by Jotter for increasing productivity of the briquette making machine.
When an addition column of briquettes is added to the machine in Otawa, an additional lug 17 and an addition beater teeth 18 are added for breaking the briquettes in the new column.
To the degree the Applicant argues such modification is not obvious to one skilled in the art, Van der Galien teaches a breaking machine having a plurality of beater teeth 22 and a plurality of lugs 26 positioned between two adjacent beater teeth 22. See Figs. 9-10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the machine in Otawa a plurality of beater teeth and a plurality of lugs, each lug positioned between two adjacent beater teeth, for breaking briquettes from a briquette strand having at least three columns of briquettes for increasing productivity of the machine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Amendment to the Specification: the Examiner has not received the amendment to the Specification.
Drawing Objections: the objection of claim 12 has been withdrawn. However, the objection of claims 2 and 3 is maintained since Figs. 3 and 5 do not show the lugs being “curved”
103 Rejections:
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Otawa, to scale up the size of the briquetting machine is known in the art as taught by Jotter. As to the number of lugs, when the number of briquette columns increases, the number of lugs increases since a lug is positioned between two adjacent columns of briquettes. This feature is also shown in Van der Galien. In summary, when the number of briquette column in Otawa increases, an additional element 18 and 17 is provided for an additional column of briquettes.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the field of the invention in the Otawa, Jotter, and Va der Galien, they both relate to the size of the machine and breaking a web of product into smaller portions.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the features in Jotter and Van der Galien are not compatible with the machine in Otawa, the teachings of Jotter and Van der Galien are applied for scaling up the machine in Otawa for increasing productivity. When the machine in Otawa is scaled up, more beater teeth rolls 18 and lugs 17 are provided in a way that every column of briquette runs through a beater teeth roll and a lug is provided between two adjacent beater teeth rolls for breaking the briquets.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights