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
"linkage system" as recited in Claims 11, 20 (the illustrated element lacks sufficient detail to clearly distinguish it from the prior art), and
“hydraulically, electrically, or pneumatically driven” as recited in Claims 11, 20, (the illustrated element lacks sufficient detail to clearly distinguish it from the prior art)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite language requiring action (or a method step) in an apparatus claim; see MPEP 2173.05 (p) II.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “for pressing against”. Examiner suggests “configured to press against”.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “for mounting the baseplate to”. Examiner suggests “configured for mounting the baseplate to”.
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 11-19 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 11, the limitation "having a roller and forming a nip gap" is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim whether the limitation applies to the tool or the mill. In order to examine the claims and advance prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to mean the limitation applies to the tool and not the mill.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rickenbach, et alia (US 2020/0156080), hereinafter Rickenbach, in view of Pryor, et alia (US 2008/0135654), hereinafter Pryor.
Regarding Claim 1, Rickenbach discloses a mill assembly (Para [0042, Ln 1-2; as illustrated in Fig 2) comprising: a mill (2) including a (10), (11) roller and forming a nip gap (between [10] & [11]) (as illustrated in Fig 2). Rickenbach further discloses a feed (Para [0042],Ln 3) however Rickenbach is silent to the details of the feed. Pryor teaches a mill assembly (as illustrated in Fig 9) Pryor further teaches a tool for feeding material into the mill (as illustrated in Fig 13), the tool comprising:
a baseplate (12') (as illustrated in Fig 15) configured to be positioned on the mill (100) (as illustrated in Fig 9) over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (240) (as illustrated in Fig 13);
a guide plate (242) (as illustrated in Fig 13) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute (249) for feeding the material (Para [0003], Ln 1 -2); and
a ram (248) configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material (Para [0003], Ln 3-4) into the mill.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mill as disclosed by Rickenbach, to include a tool for feeding material into the mill, the tool comprising: a baseplate configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot; a guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute for feeding the material; and a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap, as taught by Pryor, in order to efficiently move material into the mill.
Regarding Claim 2, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach further discloses the roller is a first roller and the mill further includes a second roller spaced from the first roller. Rickenbach is not explicit to the first roller and the second roller rotate in opposite directions, however a skilled Artisan would recognize the utility of this arrangement as it is well known in the art.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mill as taught by combined Rickenbach/Pryor to include the first roller and the second roller rotate in opposite directions, in order to reduce the material.
Regarding Claim 3, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach further discloses the first roller and the second roller rotate about horizontally-extending axes (as illustrated in Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 4, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach is silent to a stationary wall, however in order to reduce material using a roller and nip gap, some opposing surface must exist, as would be recognized by a skilled Artisan. Further, modification of the two roller arrangement as disclosed by Rickenbach would be an obvious modification of an existing arrangement to execute similar results.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mill as taught by combined Rickenbach/Pryor to include a stationary wall, wherein the roller and the stationary wall form the nip gap therebetween, in order to reduce the number of components.
Regarding Claim 5, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach discloses the guide plate (the walls of the containing structure supporting the rollers), however Rickenbach is silent to details of the guide plate. Pryor teaches the guide plate being configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (all as illustrated in Fig 13).
Regarding Claim 7, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach is silent to a stop, however Pryor teaches the ram including a stop (248b)configured to engage the guide plate to prevent the ram from being inserted into the chute beyond a predetermined limit (as illustrated in Fig 13).
Regarding Claim 8, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach is silent to the ram including a convex leading surface, however Pryor teaches the ram including a convex leading surface (32) for pressing against the material (as illustrated in Fig 5). Pryor further discloses the advantage of this surface profile in that the material being processed may be retained by the surface profile.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mill as taught by combined Rickenbach/Pryor to include the ram including a convex leading surface, as disclosed by Pryor, in order to retain the material being processed by the surface profile.
Regarding Claim 9, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach is silent to fastener holes, however Pryor teaches the baseplate including fastener holes for mounting the baseplate to the mill via a plurality of fasteners (as illustrated in Fig 11 ).
Regarding Claim 10, combined Rickenbach/Pryor teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Rickenbach is silent to spacers, however Pryor teaches the tool further comprises a plurality of spacers (see foot pegs in Fig. 9) configured to be positioned between the baseplate and the mill for spacing the guide plate from the nip gap.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, in view of Rickenbach.
Regarding Claim 11, Pryor discloses a tool for feeding material into a mill, the tool comprising:
a baseplate (12') (as illustrated in Fig 15) configured to be positioned on the device (100) (as illustrated in Fig 9), the baseplate forming a slot (240) (as illustrated in Fig 13);
a guide plate (242) (as illustrated in Fig 13) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate, the guide plate forming a chute for feeding the material (Para [0003], Ln 1-2); and
a ram (248) configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material (Para [0003], Ln 3-4) while preventing a user's fingers from nearing the chute (Para [0003], Ln 11-24).
Pryor is silent to a linkage system. Rickenbach teaches a linkage system (1) configured to urge the ram into the chute (Examiner notes the moving rollers having a nip gap between them would be recognized by a skilled Artisan to urge any material in contact with them between , when driven as taught by Rickenbach), the linkage system being electrically driven (12) (Para [0051], Ln 1).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool for feeding material into a mill, as disclosed by Pryor, to include a linkage system configured to urge the ram into the chute, the linkage system being electrically driven, as taught by Rickenbach, in order to effectively drive the rollers.
Regarding Claim 12, combined Pryor/Rickenbach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor is silent to a linkage system, however Rickenbach teaches the linkage system including a motor drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system, as stated above.
Regarding Claim 13, combined Pryor/Rickenbach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor is silent to a the linkage system including an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system, however the choice of driving systems would be the result of routine engineering experimentation, resulting in multiple options to produce similar effects, the choice depending upon the desired cost and efficiency of the final design.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool for feeding material into a mill, as taught by combined Pryor/Rickenbach to include actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system, in order to provide the best cost effective and most efficient system.
Claims 14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pryor, in view of Rickenbach and Mokhefi, et alia (US 2020/0307013), hereinafter Mokhefi.
Regarding Claim 14, combined Pryor/Rickenbach teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor is silent to the linkage system including vertical rails. Mokhefi teaches a device similar to Pryor. Mokhefi further teaches a linkage system (72) (Para [0088], Ln 1-4) configured to urge the ram (74) into the chute (50) (Para [0082], Ln 1-2). Mokhefi further teaches the advantage of the linkage system being to implement a device that allows ergonomic/smooth movements for the operator. Mokhefi further teaches the linkage system including vertical rails (116) (as illustrated in at least Fig 3) configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool for feeding material into a mill, as taught by combined Pryor/Rickenbach to include the linkage system including vertical rails configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram, as taught by Mokhefi, to implement a device that allows ergonomic/smooth movements for the operator.
Regarding Claim 16, combined Pryor/Rickenbach/Mokhefi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor is silent to collars aligned on the vertical rails, however Mokhefi teaches the ram (86a) including collars (88) aligned on the vertical rails, the linkage system being configured to prevent the ram from being inserted into the chute beyond a predetermined limit.
Regarding Claim 18, combined Pryor/Rickenbach/Mokhefi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor further discloses the guide plate being capable of being interchanged since it is removeable.
Regarding Claim 19, combined Pryor/Rickenbach/Mokhefi teaches all aspects of the claimed invention, as stated above. Pryor further discloses the ram including a convex leading surface (32) configured to press against the material as illustrated in Pryor Fig 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the closest prior art, Rickenbach, et alia (US 2020/0156080), alone or in combination with other prior art, such as Pryor, et alia (US 2008/0135654), fails to disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination with other prior art,
"a tool for feeding material into a mill, including ... a guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate including guide rollers and forming a chute for feeding the material into the nip gap" as required by claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 6, 15, 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 103, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner notes that broadening amendments outside the bounds of correcting the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 103 may render the claims not allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
It is the opinion of the Examiner that the art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious
"the guide plate includes guide rollers configured to reduce friction of the material and the ram as the material and at least a portion of the ram pass through the chute", as required by Claim 6,
"the linkage system further including a crossbar extending between the vertical rails and a spring connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the spring is configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position", as required by Claim 15, and
"the guide plate including guide rollers configured to reduce friction of the material and the ram as the material and at least a portion of the ram pass through the chute:, as required by claim 17.
Searching by the Examiner yielded prior art as cited below:
The closest prior art, Rickenbach, et alia (US 2020/0156080), alone or in combination with other prior art, such as Pryor, et alia (US 2008/0135654),fails to disclose or fairly suggest guide rollers or crossbars.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,090,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claim 1, a mill assembly (Col 10, Ln 9) comprising:
a mill including a roller and forming a nip gap (Col 10, Ln 9-10); and
a tool for feeding material into the mill (Col 10, Ln 9-10), the tool comprising:
a baseplate configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Col 10, Ln 11-12);
a guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute for feeding the material into the nip gap (Col 10, Ln 13-15); and
a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap (Col 10, Ln 17-18).
Regarding Claim 2, the roller is a first roller and the mill further includes a second roller spaced from the first roller, and wherein the first roller and the second roller rotate in opposite directions (implied by Claim 1; as well known in the art mills exist having two rollers).
Regarding Claim 3, the first roller and the second roller rotate about horizontally-extending axes (implied by claim 1; as well known in the art mills exist having rollers rotating about horizontally-extending axes).
Regarding Claim 4, a stationary wall, wherein the roller and the stationary wall form the nip gap therebetween (implied by claim 1; a nip gap must exist between two surfaces, therefore if one roller exists, another surface must also exist).
Regarding Claim 5, the guide plate being configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (disclosed by Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 6, the guide plate includes guide rollers configured to reduce friction of the material and the ram as the material and at least a portion of the ram pass through the chute (disclosed by claim 1).
Regarding Claim 7, the ram including a stop configured to engage the guide plate to prevent the ram from being inserted into the chute beyond a predetermined limit (disclosed by claim 6).
Regarding Claim 8, the ram including a convex leading surface for pressing against the material (disclosed by claim 7).
Regarding Claim 9, the baseplate including fastener holes for mounting the baseplate to the mill via a plurality of fasteners (disclosed by claim 9).
Regarding Claim 10, the tool further comprises a plurality of spacers configured to be positioned between the baseplate and the mill for spacing the guide plate from the nip gap (disclosed by claim 10).
Regarding Claim 11, a tool for feeding material into a mill having a roller and forming a nip gap (Col 10, Ln 43-44), the tool comprising:
a baseplate configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Col 10, Ln 45-46);
a guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute for feeding the material into the nip gap (Col 10, Ln 47-49);
a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap while preventing a user's fingers from nearing the nip gap through the chute (Col 10, Ln 50-51); and
a linkage system configured to urge the ram into the chute (Col 10, Ln 52), the linkage system being at least one of hydraulically driven, electrically driven, and pneumatically driven (implied by Claim 10; the linkage must be driven by something, and such drivers are well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 12, the linkage system including a motor drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (implied by Claim 10; the linkage must be driven by something, and such drivers are well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 13, the linkage system including an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (implied by Claim 10; the linkage must be driven by something, and such drivers are well known in the art).
Regarding Claim 14, the linkage system including vertical rails configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (disclosed by claim 10).
Regarding Claim 15, the linkage system further including a crossbar extending between the vertical rails and a spring connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the spring is configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position (disclosed by claim 10).
Regarding Claim 16, the ram including collars aligned on the vertical rails, the linkage system being configured to prevent the ram from being inserted into the chute beyond a predetermined limit (disclosed by claim 12).
Regarding Claim 17, the guide plate including guide rollers configured to reduce friction of the material and the ram as the material and at least a portion of the ram pass through the chute (disclosed by claim 13).
Regarding Claim 18, the guide plate being removable (disclosed by claim 14).
Regarding Claim 19, the ram including a convex leading surface configured to press against the material (disclosed by claim 15).
Regarding Claim 20, a mill assembly (Col 10, Ln 9) comprising:
a mill including a first roller and a second roller spaced from the first roller, wherein the first roller and the second roller are configured to rotate in opposite directions about horizontal axes and form a nip gap therebetween (Col 10, Ln 9-10; Examiner notes multiple rollers are well known in the art, and more than one surface would be required for a nip gap, thus implying multiple rollers); and a tool for feeding material into the mill (Col 10, Ln 9), the tool comprising:
a baseplate configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Col 10, Ln 11-12);
a guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate including guide rollers and forming a chute for feeding the material into the nip gap (Col 10, Ln 13-15);
a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap, the guide rollers being configured to reduce friction of the material and the ram as the material and at least a portion of the ram pass through the chute (Col 10, Ln 17-18);
a linkage system configured to urge the ram into the chute (Col 10, Ln 52), the linkage system being at least one of hydraulically driven, electrically driven, and pneumatically driven (implied by Claim 10; the linkage must be driven by something, and such drivers are well known in the art), the linkage system including:
vertical rails configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (Col 10, Ln 53-55); and
a crossbar extending between the vertical rails and a spring connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the spring is configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position (Col 10, Ln 57-60),
the ram including collars aligned on the vertical rails, the linkage system being configured to prevent the ram from being inserted into the chute beyond a predetermined limit (Col 10, Ln 64-67); and
at least one of a motor and an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (implied by claim 1; as drivers are well known in the art).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 308,131 Byrns teaches a mill.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred C Hammers whose telephone number is (571)272-9870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0080-1700.
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.
/FRED C HAMMERS/
Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724