DETAILED ACTION
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 “drive”, “trajectory segments”, “apex”, “transmission”, “belt drive”, “friction gear”, “motor”, “controller”, “grooves”. “protruding webs” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “with different frequencies and/or with phase offset”. IT is unclear because the claim also requires an axis having “a lower one of the two frequencies”. If the two movements have the same frequency but only a phase offset, there is no lower frequency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “changes by at least 90 degrees within a maximum of 24.5% of a length of the trajectory segment”. It is unclear because the claim does not specify how the 24.5% portion of the trajectory segment is determined.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a drive the container”. It is unclear what this means. Is the drive configured to drive the container to a movement?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least two axes with different frequencies” and “a lower one of the two frequencies”. It is unclear which two frequencies it is referring to since “at least two” permits more than two axes.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the axis”. It is unclear which one of the at least two axes it is referring to.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “0.01% to 900%”. It is unclear because the claim does not what the percentage is based on. % of what?
Claim 4 recites the limitation “phase offset is 0.0028% to 50% of the length of a trajectory segment”. It is unclear what this means.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the liquid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “liquid” has not been previously cited.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the particle size”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a particle size” has not been previously cited.
Claim 9, 10 recites the limitation “the frequency”. It is unclear which frequency it is referring to of the two frequencies in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the sensor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation “a sensor” has not been previously cited.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “optionally”. It is unclear if the limitation after “optionally” is required by the claim or not.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “its”. It is unclear what “its” is referring to.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “trajectory segments of the second phase has no apices”. It is unclear because it seems like it is contradicting claim 1 that each trajectory segment has at least one apex.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 15-16, 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Josef (DE 3224117).
Regarding claim 1, Josef discloses a device (Fig. 1-5) for producing comminuted particles from a solid material (intended use: capable of performing the function), comprising a container (1) and a drive (drive 9, 10 – see translation) the container to a reciprocating movement (see Fig. 3-5) along a trajectory curve (see arrows are trajectory curves), the device further comprising at least one grinding body (2) loosely contained in the container, the trajectory curve comprising a sequence of trajectory segments (segments shown below) which can be (capable of) generated by superimposing (“Vibrations of other frequencies are superimposed”) the reciprocating movement along at least two axes (x and y axes) with different frequencies (“The three randomly selected examples show that very different due to the superposition of the circular basic oscillation with further circular oscillations of other frequencies”) and/or with phase offset and which each comprise exactly one complete reciprocating movement (each segment comprises a movement) along the axis along which the reciprocating movement takes place with a lower one of the two frequencies and each having at least one apex (each has apex) in which the direction changes by at least 90° within a maximum of 24.5% of the length of a trajectory segment (at least 90degree angle change is within the 24.5% length of the segment shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory segments have at least one apex at which they change their direction by at least 120° (triangle angle changes 120 degree – see Fig. 3,4) within a maximum of 10% of the length of a trajectory segment. (single point is nearly 0% of the length of the segment)
Regarding claim 3, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, which is set up to change the frequencies and/or the phase offset (see Fig. 3-5 are different phase offsets) during the reciprocating movement.
Regarding claim 4, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the difference in frequencies is at least 0.01 Hz and 0.01% to 900% and/or the phase offset is 0.0028% to 50% of the length of a trajectory segment. (see Fig. 3-5)
Regarding claim 6, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the trajectory curve lies in the plane of the cross-section of the container. (see Fig. 1: movement is bound by the structures 5,6 and prevents movement more than the cross section)
Regarding claim 7, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one grinding body is selected to have a lower density (based on the intended use. If the liquid inside the device is higher density, it reads on the claim.) than the liquid in which the solid is suspended. (examiner notes that liquid is not part of the device but intended use)
Regarding claim 15, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the container wall is concave (see Fig. 1) with respect to the central axis of the container.
Regarding claim 16, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the container has an inner cross-section (circular as shown in Fig. 2) which corresponds to the shape of the cross-section of the at least one grinding body (circular as shown in Fig. 1-2) and which surrounds the grinding body with a spacing (spacing shown Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim 23, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the grinding body is convex (see Fig. 2: outer surface is convex) along its longitudinal extension.
Regarding claim 27, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the wall of the container has openings (3, 4) and this wall (circular wall of 1) is enclosed at a distance from an outer wall (side walls of 1 as viewed in Fig. 1).
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Josef.
Regarding claim 14, Josef discloses the device according to claim 1, wherein the container is driven to a reciprocating movement at least along one of the linear axes of movement with an acceleration.
Josef is silent to the specific a maximum acceleration of at least 0.5 m/s.sup.2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct Josef having a specific maximum acceleration of at least 0.5 m/s.sup.2. as determining such would result from routine experiments and engineering practice. Further, the applicant has not positively recite any criticality to the selection/determination of specific acceleration or that such solve any stated problem. Accordingly, such determination is not non-obvious and does not in itself render the claimed limitation patentable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-13, 17-22, 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2613036, RU2501608, US 20140117131 are similar prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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 on (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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights