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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 24 in Figs. 3 and 5.
The drawings are objected to because it appears that “lower joint” 51 is labeled as 52 (“upper joint”) in Figs. 3 and 5.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal language (“comprising” in line 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0038 and 0040 refer to “lower surface 25” and Paragraph 0047 refers to “projections 25.” It appears from the figures that the lower surface should be --24-- (see associated drawing objection above).
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 1-15 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 and 13, each claim recites “each support leg having at least two linkages that are rotatably coupled together” and “a first biasing member that biases the linkages to be in extension” (lines 10-11 in claim 1 and 11-12 in claim 13).
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “linkage” in claims 1 and 13 appears to be used by the claims to refer to each independently movable element of the support leg (i.e., each link), while the accepted meaning is “a system of links, especially: a system of links or bars which are jointed together and more or less constrained by having a link or links fixed and by means of which straight or nearly straight lines or other point paths may be traced” (“Linkage.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/linkage. Accessed 29 Jan. 2026.) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
It is unclear if Applicant intends to claim a separate “first biasing member” for each support leg (i.e., to bias the linkages of a respective support leg), or if a single first biasing member that biases all of the linkages of the system collectively would meet the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the joint between the linkages of the support legs” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “the motor is mounted beneath the spinner plate and motor shaft extends” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if the underlined phrase refers to the motor shaft recited in claim 1, raising the question of double inclusion and thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 9:
The claim recites “the resting position” in lines 1-2, “the lower surface of the hopper” in line 2, and “the feed disposed on the spinner plate” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The claim recites “which is sized” and “which is small enough” in lines 2-3. It is unclear to which feature these limitations refer.
The term “small enough” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small enough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the scope of “small enough to prevent vermin from accessing the feed” in lines 3-4 is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the gap between the spinner plate and the lower surface of the hopper” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the gap” and “the lower surface of the hopper” in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “around the spinner plate and closure system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If the underlined phrase is intended to refer to the closure assembly recited in claim 1, it should read --the closure assembly-- to avoid raising the question of double inclusion.
In light of the indefiniteness issues described above, the claims will be interpreted according to Examiner’s best understanding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogart (US 9,700,014).
Regarding claim 1, Bogart discloses a feed distribution system (see the Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a feed hopper (20) having an interior cavity (34) and a feed outlet (36);
a spinner plate (90) disposed beneath the feed outlet of the hopper (Fig. 3);
a motor (80) having a motor shaft coupled to the spinner plate for rotation of the spinner plate (see Fig. 3); and
a closure assembly (100) comprising:
a support bracket (108), a central shaft (102), and at least two support legs (106) rotatably coupled to the support bracket and to the spinner plate (see Fig. 3), each support leg having at least two linkages that are rotatably coupled together (106 may be rigid bodies connected by hinges; Col. 5, lines 20-25) and a first biasing member (104) that biases the linkages to be in extension (see Fig. 2), wherein when the spinner plate is at rest, the support legs force the spinner plate upward along the central shaft towards the hopper to a closed position and inhibit the spinner plate from being pulled downward away from the hopper by a downward force exerted on the spinner plate (Bogart describes 104 as performing this function and notes that, as an alternative to the illustrated embodiment with a single spring surrounding 102, 104 may comprise more than one spring and may be placed adjacent to 102; Col. 5, lines 1-33; Col. 6, lines 65-67; thus Bogart would be considered to disclose at least one configuration in which the support legs include springs that force the spinner plate upward, according to Examiner’s best understanding of the claim), wherein when the motor rotates the spinner plate, a centrifugal force is exerted which forces the linkages of each of the support legs into flexion and moves the spinner plate downward along the central shaft away from the hopper (Col. 6, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 4, Bogart further discloses that the support legs are rotatably coupled to the spinner plate near an edge of the spinner plate (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Bogart further discloses that the motor is mounted beneath the spinner plate and motor shaft extends upward to be coupled with the spinner plate (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Bogart further discloses that, when the spinner plate is in the resting position, a gap is maintained between the spinner plate and a lower surface of the hopper which is sized such that the spinner plate can rotate without interference but which is small enough to prevent vermin from accessing the feed disposed on the spinner plate (see gap between 40 and the dashed line position of 90 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Bogart further discloses that when the spinner plate is rotated such that it is moved downward along the central shaft, a gap between the spinner plate and a lower surface of the hopper is increased to allow feed to be dispersed (see gap between 40 and 90 that increases as 90 moves along distance D1 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Bogart further discloses that the spinner plate includes an upwardly inclined lip (94) around the spinner plate (Col. 4, lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 12, Bogart further discloses protective bars (50) disposed around the spinner plate and closure system (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Bogart discloses a spreader assembly for a feed distribution system (see the Abstract; Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a mounting bracket (44) configured for mounting the spreader assembly to a feed outlet of a feed hopper (Col. 5, lines 1-5), the mounting bracket having an upper surface (meeting hopper wall 22; see Fig. 3) and a lower surface (46);
a spinner plate (90) rotatably mounted on the lower surface of the mounting bracket (Fig. 3);
a motor (80) having a motor shaft coupled to the spinner plate for rotation of the spinner plate (see Fig. 3); and
a closure assembly (100) comprising:
a support bracket (108), a central shaft (102), and at least two support legs (106) rotatably coupled to the support bracket and to the spinner plate (see Fig. 3), each support leg having at least two linkages that are rotatably coupled together (106 may be rigid bodies connected by hinges; Col. 5, lines 20-25) and a first biasing member (104) that biases the linkages to be in extension (see Fig. 2), wherein when the spinner plate is at rest, the support legs force the spinner plate upward along the central shaft towards the lower surface of the mounting bracket to a closed position and inhibit the spinner plate from being pulled downward away from the mounting bracket by a downward force exerted on the spinner plate (see above regarding the similar limitation in claim 1), wherein when the motor rotates the spinner plate, a centrifugal force is exerted which forces the linkages of each of the support legs into flexion and moves the spinner plate downward along the central shaft away from the mounting bracket (Col. 6, lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 15, Bogart discloses the spreader assembly of claim 13, and further discloses that the motor is configured beneath the spinner plate, and the motor shaft being configured to extend upward toward the spinner plate (see Figs. 2-3).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart in view of Achiriloaie et al. (US 8,373,368).
Regarding claim 2, Bogart discloses the feed distribution system of claim 1, but is silent regarding details of the linkages of the support legs, and thus does not explicitly disclose that the linkages of the support legs are biased toward an over-center orientation which inhibits the linkages from being forced into flexion.
Achiriloaie et al. teach a rotating mechanism having a variable moment of inertia (see the Abstract) that includes support legs made up of linkages (13, 15) that are biased (by masses 14) toward an over-center orientation which inhibits the linkages from being forced into flexion (Examiner notes that an “over-center orientation” is not specifically defined in the claims, but Paragraph 0042 of the written description refers to Fig. 6 and describes the linkages as being “locked in extension and are inhibited from rotating back into flexion when a laterally downward and/or radially outward force is exerted on the spinner plate”; the linkages of Achiriloaie et al. are biased to remain extended and relatively close to the central shaft when at rest such that a lateral or radial force on a plate at an end of the linkages would not result in significant flexion, thus meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation according to Examiner’s best understanding; see Figs. 1A-1B; Col. 4, lines 41-55). Achiriloaie et al. teach this configuration as an improvement for devices that employ masses that swing away from a central hub (Col. 1, line 57 - Col. 2, line 2), since it stores both rotational kinetic energy and potential gravitational energy, allowing the device to continue rotating in a controlled manner for some time after an initial energy input (Col. 4, line 56 - Col. 5, line 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to configure the linkages of Bogart to be biased toward an over-center orientation, as taught by Achiriloaie et al., in order to increase the energy efficiency of the system, as compared to freely swinging flexible masses. Such a modification would be consistent with the description in Bogart of “weighted tension elements 106” that may have additional weights “for providing additional angular momentum when rotating”; Col. 5, lines 25-33). Though Achiriloaie et al. describe an intended use of the mechanism in a flywheel of an energy storage device (Col. 1, lines 11-13), the teachings are also intended to be generally applicable to a mechanical device driven by an electric motor (Col. 4, lines 36-40), and thus would be reasonably pertinent to the device disclosed by Bogart (especially in view of the above-cited considerations of angular momentum). Since Bogart is silent regarding the details of the linkages, one having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for solutions, of which Achiriloaie et al. provides a suitable example.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Bogart discloses the feed distribution system of claim 1, and further notes that “spring 104 may be of any type known to one skilled in the art” (Col. 5, lines 1-2), but does not explicitly disclose that the first biasing member is a torsion spring disposed on a joint between the linkages of the support legs. As described above regarding claim 1, Bogart illustrates a compression spring surrounding the central shaft, and contemplates the use of multiple springs in the system. However, Bogart describes these configurations as alternatives, and thus does not explicitly disclose both a first biasing member and a second biasing member.
Achiriloaie et al. teach a rotating mechanism, as described above regarding claim 2, having a biasing member (17) that is a torsion spring disposed on a joint between the linkages of the support legs (17 may include torsion springs on the support legs; Col. 7, lines 31-33; and placement may be at the joint between 13 and 15; Col. 3, lines 11-12). Achiriloaie et al. further teach that the torsion springs may be employed in addition to a compression spring disposed along the central shaft (17 as illustrated in Figs. 1A-1B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Bogart with both a first biasing member (in the form of torsion springs disposed on the joint between the linkages) and a second biasing member (in the form of a compression spring disposed along the central shaft), as taught by Achiriloaie et al. Doing so would allow more design flexibility in the system, since spring parameters (size, material, spring constant, etc.) could be adjusted for each type of spring to suit a variety of applications (environment, feed type, size of hopper, etc.).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Myers (US 2015/0336118).
Regarding claim 7, Bogart discloses the feed distribution system of claim 1, but does not disclose that the motor is mounted inside the interior cavity of the hopper and the motor shaft extends through the feed outlet to be coupled with the spinner plate.
Myers teaches a similar system having a motor (23) mounted inside an interior cavity of a hopper and a motor shaft extending through a feed outlet to be coupled with a spinner plate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-2). Myers teaches that this configuration is an improvement over a system having a bottom-mounted motor because it allows the spreader to be lower to the ground and protects the motor from damage (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the system of Bogart with a top-mounted motor, as taught by Myers, in order to protect the motor and reduce the height of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Bogart discloses the spreader assembly of claim 13, but does not disclose that the motor is mounted on the upper surface of the mounting bracket, and the motor shaft being configured to extend downward through an opening in the mounting bracket toward the spinner plate.
Myers teaches a similar assembly having a mounting bracket (15 with 16) and a motor (23) mounted on an upper surface of the mounting bracket (Paragraph 0030), and a motor shaft being configured to extend downward through an opening in the mounting bracket toward a spinner plate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-2). Myers teaches that this configuration is an improvement over an assembly having a bottom-mounted motor because it allows the spreader to be lower to the ground and protects the motor from damage (Paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to provide the assembly of Bogart with a top-mounted motor, as taught by Myers, in order to protect the motor and reduce the height of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. In particular, Farmer (US 2019/0099779), Chism (US 7,866,579), and Bogart (US 9,301,495) disclose devices relevant to the independent claims of the instant application; and Walsh et al. (US 9,561,544) disclose a mechanism similar to that of Achiriloaie et al. which is relevant to claims 2-3 and 5-6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5558. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 CST.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/MICHAEL C PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 February 4, 2026