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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
The indicated allowability of claims 6, 15 and 17 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references and rejections based on the newly cited references below.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the legal phraseology comprises in line 2. 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
-Regarding claims 6, 17, 20, 21 and 23, the phrase “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” does not appear to be provided within the specification. The specification only provides “The guide rollers minimize friction of the material as it is pressed into the nip gap” in paragraph 0038; and “The guide rollers 322 minimize friction of the material as it is pressed into the nip gap 406” in paragraph 0097. The claim language appears to be originally filed, thus supported, but lacking description within the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
-The terminology of crossbar in claims 15, 20 and 22 is not found within the specification and lacks antecedent basis for the claims. The terminology utilized in the specification appears to be “spring bar 334” or “328”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as spring bar 334 (See paragraphs 0087-0088).
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 “stationary wall” of claim 4, the plurality of fasteners” of claim 9; and “the linkage system including a motor drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claim 12 and “the linkage system including an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claims 12 and 13 and “at least one of a motor and an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claim 20; and “the ram including a convex leading surface” of claims 8 and 19; and “a cross bar extending between the vertical rails” of claims 15, 20 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes that while a stationary wall is shown independently in Figure 7, there does not appear to be any stationary wall that works in combination with the remaining claimed structure of claim 1 including a tool (100) and guide plate.
-Examiner notes reference character 314 is utilized in block formatting to note the actuator and motor. However, there are no further structural details and schematics showing the connection of a motor or actuator with the linkage system (310) that appears to be manually driven (Paragraph 0095). The nexus components between the motor/actuator and the linkage system are not shown.
-Examiner notes the crossbar of claims 15, 20 and 22 appears to be spring bar 334 but the terminology does not appear to be in the specification. For the purposes of examination, the spring bar 334 will be treated as the “crossbar” as best understood.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: fasteners in claim 9, linkage system in claims 11 and 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 17, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
-Regarding claims 6, 17, 20, 21 and 23, the phrase “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” does not appear to be provided within the specification. The specification only provides “The guide rollers minimize friction of the material as it is pressed into the nip gap” in paragraph 0038; and “The guide rollers 322 minimize friction of the material as it is pressed into the nip gap 406” in paragraph 0097” lacks written description as to how the guide rollers are capable of performing the function of reducing friction. As there are a variety of materials the guide rollers may be made from, and a plurality of different workpieces that may be used, it is unclear how the guide rollers are capable of reducing friction made from any type of material and working with any workpiece. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as any roller is capable of reducing friction when cooperated against during use.
Claims 4, 12, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 9, the phrase “the baseplate including fastener holes configured for mounting the baseplate to the mill via a plurality of fasteners” appears to lack written description. Examiner notes the specification appears to note that the base plate includes mounting points (110 or 312 as provided for in Paragraphs 0056-0057 and 0091) but does not appear to provide the bounds of what can and cannot be considered a fastener. The drawings appear to provide some component within the mounting holes, but it is unclear what the components of the fastener are intended to be. For the purposes of examination, any structural component capable of providing a “fastening” function will be treated as a fastener.
-Regarding claims 12, 13 and 20, the phrases “the linkage system including a motor drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claim 12 and “the linkage system including an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claims 12 and 13 and “at least one of a motor and an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system” of claim 20 lack written description. Paragraph 0085 provides “The linkage system 310 drives the ram 308 into the chute 324 and broadly includes opposing vertical rails 332 A, B, a spring bar 334, a plurality of biasing elements 336, opposing links 338 A, B, and a lever 340. In another embodiment, as schematically depicted in FIGS. 6 and 7, the linkage system 310 may be at least one of hydraulically driven, electrically driven, and pneumatically driven. The linkage system 310 may also be activated by at least one of an actuator and a motor, as represented by block 314”. Examiner notes these appear to be separate embodiments, and it is unclear what structural components are used in combination with the linkage system as a whole and “an actuator or motor”. As currently claimed, the linkage system 310 is directly connected to any type of motor or actuator, to the driven, which does not appear to be supported by the specification and drawings. What structural elements of the linkage or motor/actuator work together to provide for the driven effects as claimed? How does the actuator or motor without the input from a controller device actuate or activate the linkage system?
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 1-19,21-23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claims 1, 11, 21-23 the phrase “wherein the mill has a roller and forms a nip gap” is unclear. By definition a nip gap requires two structural components spaced from one another such that the space between (nip gap) a roller, and a second component provides for a nip gap. As currently claimed, there appears to be only a single roller, capable of forming a nip gap with some other unclaimed structure and will be treated as such in the rejection below.
-Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first roller and the second roller" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the mill further including a stationary wall, wherein the roller and the stationary wall form the nip gap therebetween” is unclear. Examiner notes Figure 7 appear to show a stationary wall (208 and specification paragraph 0052) provides support for a stationary wall. However, there does not appear to be any details as to how a single, stationary wall, works in combination with the remaining structure to support the required limitations. For example, how does the baseplate to be positioned on the mill over the roller, and the guide plate configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap? Does the singular wall work in combination with remaining structure as a single structural point to hold the device during use? For the purposes of examination, the “singular wall” will be treated as a portion of the frame.
-Regarding claims 11 22 and 23, the phrase “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” is unclear. Examiner notes Figure 4 showing the ram with the linkage system in what appears to be a “non use” position. It is unclear how the ram prevents a user’s fingers from “nearing” the nip gap through the chute. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated as capable of preventing a user’s fingers from entering the nip gap during certain use scenarios.
Claims 1-10, dependent from claim 1, 12-19 dependent from claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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 1-16, 18-19 and 22 are rejected, as best understood in light of the 112 rejections above, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (US2011/0114772) in view of Koening (US2002/0148917).
Regarding claim 1, Nickel teaches a mill assembly comprising:
a mill (110,111,112,113) including a roller (101,102) and forming a nip gap (103)(Figures 1 and 3; Paragraph 0023); and
a tool for feeding material into the mill (Figure 1; Paragraph 0023) the tool comprising: a baseplate (121,120,122) configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Examiner notes the base plate 121,120,122 slots a space therebetween as a “slot” allowing for attachment of the guide plate components); a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap (Figure 3), the guide plate forming a chute (203) for feeding the material into the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027).
Nickel does not provide for a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of mill assemblies to provide a mill assembly (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0033-0036) with a chute (32) and a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into a nip gap (Figures 1 and 7; Paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0041-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the chute with a ram. In doing so, it allows for material to be pushed as desired through the chute towards the material processing components.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, wherein the roller is a first roller (101) and the mill further includes a second roller (102) spaced from the first roller, and wherein the first roller and the second roller rotate in opposite directions (Nickel Figure 1 and Paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, wherein the first roller and the second roller rotate about horizontally-extending axes (Nickel Figure 1 and Paragraph 0023 noting the rotational direction of the rollers about a horizontal axis through the bearing components of each respective roller).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, the mill further including a stationary wall, wherein the roller and the stationary wall form the nip gap therebetween (Nickel Figures 1 and 3 noting there are a plurality of different wall portions of the frame that are stationary with respect to the rollers (101,102) capable of forming a “nip gap” therebetween).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, the guide plate being configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, wherein 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.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, 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.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, including a leading surface (Koening Figure 7 and Paragraph –43 noting the leading surface is flat) but does not provide the ram including a convex leading surface configured to press against the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to provide the leading surface as any reasonable shape, including convex. In doing so, it allows for various shaped leading surfaces to contact the workpiece with the desired contact surface shape and contact point. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, and the baseplate (101,120,122) appears to include fastener holes configured for mounting the baseplate to the mill via a plurality of fasteners but is silent to the exact attachment structure of the components. As such, the modified device of Nickel does not provide the baseplate includes fastener holes configured for mounting the baseplate to the mill via a plurality of fasteners.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of material processing to provide components that are removably attachable to a variety of structural components via bolts or machine screws (Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0040, 0050; Examiner notes bolts and machine screws to be fasteners, and there must be fastener holes to allow for the bolt or machine to connect the components together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide fastener holes and fasters. In doing so, it allows for structural components to be removably attachable as desired.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Nickel teaches the mill assembly of claim 1, wherein the tool further comprises a plurality of spacers (240,241,242,243) configured to be positioned between the baseplate and the mill for spacing the guide plate from the nip gap (Nickel Figures 1-2 and Paragraph 0025 noting the vertical displacement of the structural components).
Regarding claim 11, Nickel teaches tool for feeding material into a mill (110,111,112,113), wherein the mill has a roller (101,102) and forms a nip gap (103)(Figures 1 and 3; Paragraph 0023),
the tool comprising: a baseplate (121,120,122) configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Examiner notes the base plate 121,120,122 slots a space therebetween as a “slot” allowing for attachment of the guide plate components; a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute (203) for feeding the material into the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027).
Nickel does not provide 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; and a linkage system configured to move independently from the roller and urge the ram into the chute.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of mill assemblies to provide a mill assembly (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0033-0036) with a chute (32) and 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 (Figure 7 noting the ram is capable of preventing a user from entering the chute towards the nip gap to some degree) and a linkage system (132 noting the ram assembly as the linkage components described within Paragraphs 0041-0047) configured to move independently from the roller and urge the ram into the chute (Figures 1 and 7-9; Paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0041-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the chute with a ram including a linkage assembly. In doing so, it allows for material to be pushed as desired through the chute towards the material processing components.
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, the linkage system including a motor drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (Koening Paragraphs 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, the linkage system including an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (Koening Paragraphs 0047-0048).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, the linkage system including vertical rails (128) configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (Koening Figures 7 and 10; Paragraph 0043-0046).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 14, the linkage system further including a crossbar (136)(Koening Figure 10 and Paragraph 0043) extending between the vertical rails (Figure 10) and rods and cylinders connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the rods and cylinders are configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position (Paragraphs 0041-0046).
Robson (US2010/0008728) provides evidence it is known to provide a variety of mechanisms, including biasing means, springs, belts, chains, ram drives or any suitable mechanism to assist in a descent of tool descent (Paragraph 0041).
The modified device of Nickel does not provide a spring connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the spring is configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue biasing mechanisms which are known to be useful for a particular biasing function. There are a finite number of possible biasing mechanisms which pertain to a rams configured for movement within a mill chute and allow for the ram to move as desired providing the workpiece movement function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable biasing mechanism, including springs in an attempt to provide an improved biasing function for the ram, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, 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 (Koening Figure 10; noting the support frame having collars above the rods 128 limiting overall movement).
Regarding claim 18, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, but does not provide the guide plate being removable.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of material processing to provide components that are removably attachable to a variety of structural components via bolts or machine screws (Paragraphs 0035-0037, 0040, 0050; Examiner notes bolts and machine screws to be fasteners, and there must be fastener holes to allow for the bolt or machine to connect the components together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the guide plate as removable. In doing so, it allows for structural components to be removably attachable as desired.
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, including a leading surface (Koening Figure 7 and Paragraph 0043 noting the leading surface is flat) but does not provide the ram including a convex leading surface configured to press against the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to provide the leading surface as any reasonable shape, including convex. In doing so, it allows for various shaped leading surfaces to contact the workpiece with the desired contact surface shape and contact point. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 22, Nickel teaches a tool for feeding material into a mill, wherein the mill has a roller and forms a nip gap;
the tool comprising: a baseplate configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot;
a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute (203) for feeding the material into the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027).
Nickel does not provide 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; and a linkage system including: vertical rails configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram; 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, the linkage system being configured to urge the ram into the chute.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (US2011/0114772) in view of Koening (US2002/0148917) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Thiel (US2009/0140086).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Nickel teaches the tool of claim 11, but does not provide 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.
Thiel teaches it is known to provide a workpiece conveyance path including a guide plate (198) with at least one roller (198) to reduce the friction as it is moved towards processing (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Thiel to provide guide rollers to reduce the friction of the workpiece during processing. In doing so, it allows for friction to be reduced as desired when processing a workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Nickel in view of Thiel provides a 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 (Koening Figures 1 and 7; Thiel Paragraph 0057).
Claims 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickel (US2011/0114772) in view of Koening (US2002/0148917) in view of Thiel (US2009/0140086).
Regarding claim 20, Nickel teaches a mill assembly comprising:
a mill (110,111,112,113) including a first roller and a second roller (101,102) 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 (103) therebetween (Figures 1 and 3; Paragraph 0023); and
a tool for feeding material into the mill (Figure 1; Paragraph 0023), the tool comprising: a baseplate (121,120,122) configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Examiner notes the base plate 121,120,122 slots a space therebetween as a “slot” allowing for attachment of the guide plate components);
a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027)
Nickel does not provide for a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap; or a linkage system configured to urge the ram into the chute the linkage system including: vertical rails configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram; and a crossbar extending between the vertical rails and rods and cylinders connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the rods and cylinders are configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position, 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; and at least one of a motor and an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of mill assemblies to provide a mill assembly (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0033-0036) with a chute (32) and a ram (108) configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into a nip gap (Figures 1 and 7; Paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0041-0047); a linkage system configured to urge the ram into the chute (132 noting the ram assembly as the linkage components described within Paragraphs 0041-0047) the linkage system including: vertical rails (128) configured to vertically align the ram in the chute to prevent lateral movement and rotation of the ram (Figures 7 and 10; Paragraph 0043-0046); and a crossbar (136) extending between the vertical rails (Figure 10) and rods and cylinders connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the rods and cylinders are configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position (Paragraphs 0041-0046), 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 (Figure 10; noting the support frame having collars above the rods 128 limiting overall movement); and at least one of a motor and an actuator drivably linked to the ram via the linkage system (Paragraphs 0047-0048).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the chute with a ram including a linkage driving system. In doing so, it allows for material to be pushed as desired through the chute towards the material processing components.
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Nickel does not provide a spring connected between the crossbar and the ram such that the spring is configured to bias the ram toward a predetermined position.
Robson (US2010/0008728) provides evidence it is known to provide a variety of mechanisms, including biasing means, springs, belts, chains, ram drives or any suitable mechanism to assist in a descent of tool descent (Paragraph 0041).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue biasing mechanisms which are known to be useful for a particular biasing function. There are a finite number of possible biasing mechanisms which pertain to a rams configured for movement within a mill chute and allow for the ram to move as desired providing the workpiece movement function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable biasing mechanism, including springs in an attempt to provide an improved biasing function for the ram, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Regarding claim 20, the modified device of Nickel in view of Koening does not provide the guide plate including guide rollers or 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.
Thiel teaches it is known to provide a workpiece conveyance path including a guide plate (198) with at least one roller (198) to reduce the friction as it is moved towards processing (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Thiel to provide guide rollers to reduce the friction of the workpiece during processing. In doing so, it allows for friction to be reduced as desired when processing a workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Nickel in view of Thiel provides a 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 (Koening Figures 1 and 7; Thiel Paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 21, Nickel teaches a mill assembly comprising:
a mill (110,111,112,113) including a roller (101,102) and forming a nip gap (103)(Figures 1 and 3; Paragraph 0023); and
a tool for feeding material into the mill (Figure 1; Paragraph 0023) the tool comprising: a baseplate (121,120,122) configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Examiner notes the base plate 121,120,122 slots a space therebetween as a “slot” allowing for attachment of the guide plate components); a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap (Figure 3), the guide plate forming a chute (203) for feeding the material into the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027).
Nickel does not provide for a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into the nip gap.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of mill assemblies to provide a mill assembly (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0033-0036) with a chute (32) and a ram configured to be inserted into the chute to urge the material into a nip gap (Figures 1 and 7; Paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0041-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the chute with a ram. In doing so, it allows for material to be pushed as desired through the chute towards the material processing components.
Regarding claim 21, Nickel in view of Koening does not provide wherein 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.
Thiel teaches it is known to provide a workpiece conveyance path including a guide plate (198) with at least one roller (198) to reduce the friction as it is moved towards processing (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Thiel to provide guide rollers to reduce the friction of the workpiece during processing. In doing so, it allows for friction to be reduced as desired when processing a workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Nickel in view of Thiel provides a 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 (Koening Figures 1 and 7; Thiel Paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 23, Nickel teaches a tool for feeding material into a mill (110,111,112,113), wherein the mill has a roller (101,102) and forms a nip gap (103)(Figures 1 and 3; Paragraph 0023),
the tool comprising: a baseplate (121,120,122) configured to be positioned on the mill over the roller, the baseplate forming a slot (Examiner notes the base plate 121,120,122 slots a space therebetween as a “slot” allowing for attachment of the guide plate components; a guide plate (202,204) configured to be positioned in the slot of the baseplate near the nip gap, the guide plate forming a chute (203) for feeding the material into the nip gap (Figures 3 and 4; Paragraph 0027).
Nickel does not provide 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; and a linkage system configured to move independently from the roller and urge the ram into the chute.
Koening teaches it is known in the art of mill assemblies to provide a mill assembly (Figure 1; Paragraphs 0033-0036) with a chute (32) and 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 (Figure 7 noting the ram is capable of preventing a user from entering the chute towards the nip gap to some degree) and a linkage system (132 noting the ram assembly as the linkage components described within Paragraphs 0041-0047) configured to move independently from the roller and urge the ram into the chute (Figures 1 and 7-9; Paragraphs 0013, 0016, 0041-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Koening to provide the chute with a ram including a linkage assembly. In doing so, it allows for material to be pushed as desired through the chute towards the material processing components.
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Nickel does not provide wherein 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.
Thiel teaches it is known to provide a workpiece conveyance path including a guide plate (198) with at least one roller (198) to reduce the friction as it is moved towards processing (Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Nickel to incorporate the teachings of Thiel to provide guide rollers to reduce the friction of the workpiece during processing. In doing so, it allows for friction to be reduced as desired when processing a workpiece.
Thus, the modified device of Nickel in view of Thiel provides a 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 (Koening Figures 1 and 7; Thiel Paragraph 0057).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-M on page 1 and A-M on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of devices with rollers for grinding, including different drive mechanisms, and feeding devices/chutes to provide materials/workpieces to rollers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 09/16/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights