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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, the phrase "in particular" 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).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "formed to be different" in the second line. It is unclear how the segments are different. The word different is not defined clearly in the specification or claim. Applicant should clarify how the segments are different. Does applicant mean different shape or size?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "deformed" in the second line. It is unclear what structure defines a deformed knife blade. The claim and specification do not define deformed.
Claims 14 recite the limitation "said knife blade”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Knife blade is not previously stated in claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 are rejected as they are dependent claims. Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 depends from claim 1, which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for “lack of antecedent basis”. Because claim 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 incorporates the limitations of claim 1, the indefiniteness of claim 1 is carried into claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 is also indefinite for the same reason.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Tamminga (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0049686). Tamminga discloses a Cutting knife for a feed mixer, wherein said cutting knife comprises: a plurality of segments 250, 245, 240, and 225 (Fig. 2C), wherein said plurality of segments each comprises a blade edge (see Fig. 2C illustrated below), and wherein said segments are spaced from one another by recesses (see Fig. 2C illustrated below).
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 1 – 5, 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0049686) in view of Hartwig (U.S. Patent No. 5,456,416).
Regarding claim 1, Tamminga discloses a feed mixer (Fig. 5B) for shredding and mixing feed, in particular fibrous plant material (intended use), comprising: a mixing auger 500 (Fig. 5B) arranged to be rotatable in a mixing container, wherein said mixing auger comprises at least one cutting knife 300 (Fig. 5B), wherein said at least one cutting knife comprises a plurality of segments 250, 245, 240, and 225 (Fig. 2C) (Also, see Figs. 2, 3, and 7), wherein said plurality of segments each comprises a blade edge (see Fig. 2C illustrated below) and wherein said segments are spaced from one another by recesses (see Fig. 2C illustrated below).
Tamminga fails to disclose a mixing container for receiving feed, wherein said mixing container has a base and a wall extending upwardly from said base.
Hartwig teaches a mixing container 12 (Fig. 1) for receiving feed, wherein said mixing container has a base 17 and a wall 15, 16 (Fig. 1) extending upwardly from said base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed mixer of Tamminga and include the mixing container, as taught by Hartwig, for the purpose of engaging with bales of material to cut and shred (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: each recess comprises at least one edge. (Tamminga discloses the segments spaced from one another by the recesses in (Fig. 2A), wherein each recess comprised of two edges along the depth direction of the recess.)
Regarding claim 3, Tamminga discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 2, wherein: said at least one edge is arranged along the depth direction and/or along the width of said respective recess. (Tamminga discloses the segments spaced from one another by the recesses in (Fig. 2A), wherein each recess comprised of two edges along the depth direction of the recess.)
Regarding claim 4, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 2, wherein: said at least one edge is burred, sharp-edged, or grooved. (Tamminga discloses in paragraph 50 “In another embodiment of the base knife or knives as outlined above, the blade edge is serrated.” Serrated meaning the lade edge having a jagged or sharp edge.)
Regarding claim 5, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 2, wherein: said blade edges of said plurality of segments and/or said plurality of segments lie in a plane. (Tamminga discloses in paragraph 24 “In another embodiment of the knife or knives as outlined above, the exterior cutting side further comprises a flat section with substantially no angle upward from horizontal positioned at or toward the leading end.“ Each section have no angle meaning they all lie on the same plane relative to one another.)
Regarding claim 9, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said blade edges of said plurality of segments extend along a line or along parallel lines offset from one another, and/or wherein each blade edge of said plurality of segments comprises a jag, in particular two or more than two jags. (Tamminga discloses in paragraph 26 “In another embodiment of the knife or knives as outlined above, the blade edge is serrated.” Wherein serrated means jagged.)
Regarding claim 10, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said recesses extend substantially in the direction of rotation of said mixing auger or transverse to the direction of rotation of said mixing auger. (Tamminga discloses in (Fig.3A) the recess is perpendicular or transverse to the direction of rotation of the mixing auger.)
Regarding claim 11, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said recesses are formed to have different depths and/or widths, and/or wherein said recesses are arranged at different angles relative to one another and/or relative to the direction of rotation of said mixing auger. (Tamminga discloses in (Fig 7A) the recesses are arranged at different angle relative to each other and they are formed to have different width. (see Fig. 7A illustrated below))
PNG
media_image2.png
501
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said plurality of segments is formed to be different, in particular to have different widths, and/or wherein said blade edges of said plurality of segments are regrindable. (Tamminga discloses in (Fig. 3A) the different section views of the blade edges and recesses. Each blade edge in different segments having different angle and length. the plurality of segments in the drawings have different width and length. Moreover, the blade edges are regrindable.)
Regarding claim 13, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said knife blade of said at least one cutting knife is deformed such that said at least one cutting knife can be mounted onto said mixing auger, in particular onto an auger blade of said mixing auger, in such a way that the cutting plane of said plurality of segments is substantially perpendicular to the axis of rotation of said mixing auger. (Tamminga discloses the knifes are placed perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the auger in (Fig. 5B). Tamminga also discloses that the blade edges are serrated. Serrated is considered as deformed blade edge.)
Regarding claim 14, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1, wherein: said knife blade of said at least one cutting knife has reinforcements, in particular pressings and/or deformations, on the upper side and/or underside. (Tamminga discloses in paragraph 96 that a knife having suitable mounting holes or brackets for mounting the knife to an auger using any suitable mounting technique which is considered reinforcement. The four holes shown on the knife are used to attach the knife to the auger.)
Regarding claim 16, Tamminga discloses A feed mixer (Fig. 5B) for shredding and mixing feed comprising: a mixing auger (500) with a vertical axis and having an upward winding auger blade (Fig. 5B. as shown in Fig. 5B) a cutting knife 300 (Fig. 5B) mounted on the upward winding auger blade having a plurality of segments separated by a plurality of recesses formed along said cutting knife (see Fig. 10B illustrated below) (Paragraph 43-47 states the blade edges can be angles from 1 -90 degrees); and each of said plurality of segments having a blade edge (Fig. 10B, illustrated below), the blade edge of each of said plurality of segments being offset from one another on a parallel lines (as shown in Fig. 10B Fig.10 B discloses that the segments are divided by three recesses, wherein each recess are parallel to each other).
PNG
media_image3.png
481
269
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Tamminga fails to disclose that the auger assembly is placed inside a mixing container. However, Hartwig teaches that the auger assembly is placed in a container (Col 2, lines 22-28 and Fig. 1. Hartwig states that “In accordance with the present invention there is provided a mixer which is comprised of a substantially circular container tub having a first end, a second end and sidewalls which extend between the first and second ends. The auger mixer contains at least one screw or auger flighting portion rotating within the container tub and extending upwardly from the floor of the tub.”).
Tamminga and Hartwig are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tamminga to incorporate the teachings of Hartwig and add a container for the purpose of engaging with bales of material to cut and shred (abstract).
Claims 6, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamminga in view of Hartwig, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Markham (US Patent No. US 3635271 A)
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Tamminga in view of Hartwig discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 1. Tamminga in view of Hartwig fails to disclose the blades edges being hardened or the segments being hardened. However, Markham teaches in (col-3, lines 48-54) that “Since the layer 76 is substantially harder and thus more resistant to wear than the metal composing the remainder of the knife, the edge 46 wears at a substantially slower rate and the outer end of the knife eventually assumes the general shape indicated in exaggerated fashion by the dashed line 80.”
Tamminga and Markham are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the blade edges and segments hardened more than the rest of the body of the knife so the blade edges and segments will obtain greater resistance to wear of quickly. This will increase the life of the blade and keeps the user happy by not having to change the knife frequently.
Regarding claim 8, Tamminga in view of Markham discloses the Feed mixer according to claim 6. Tamminga further discloses wherein: said recesses extend into an unhardened or less hardened region of said at least one cutting knife. After modification, the recess would extend into an unhardened or less hardened region of said at least one cutting knife since the recess extends beyond the blade edge further into the cutting knife.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIE S WELDEGIORGIS whose telephone number (571)270-0872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/L.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights