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 .
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page32 lines 16-19, both 1658a and 1657a point first grooved plate then 1658a indicate a groove.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, 15, 16, 26, 28, 30 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.
Claim 2 The term “about” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected as being depended upon rejected claim2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the mulcher" in line1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the plurality of teeth holder" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, claim16 recites “the at least one guide plate is a plurality of guide plates”, it is not clear how one guide plate is a plurality of guide plates.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the mulcher" in line1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 is rejected as being depended upon rejected claim26.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the bite guard assembly" in line1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 16, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weinberg (US- 20200016602).
In Re Claim1: Weinberg discloses a mulcher head (fig.4, 110) for shredding a material, the mulcher head comprising: a frame (fig.1, “F”, see annotated picture below); a cutting drum (fig.4, 111) rotationally connected to the frame (fig.1, “F”, see annotated picture below), wherein the cutting drum (fig.4, 111) comprises; a tubular body having an axial center (fig.4, 112), a first side and a second side; a plurality of tool holders (fig.4, 118, referred as element mounts) each configured to receive one of a plurality of cutting tools (fig.4, 116) with at least one edge for shredding the material, the plurality of tool holders (fig.4, 118) operatively coupled to an outer surface of the tubular body; and a bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) operatively coupled to the outer surface of the tubular body (fig.4); wherein the bite limiter assembly (fig.6, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) comprises at least one guide plate (fig.4, 120) coupled to the tubular body at an angle to a rotational axis (fig.4, 112) of the cutting drum (fig.4, 111); wherein a cutting radius (fig.6, “CR”, see annotated picture below) extending from the axis (fig.6, 112) of the cutting drum to a cutting edge of the plurality of cutting tools (fig.4, 116) is greater than a guide radius (fig.6, “GR”, see annotated picture below) extending from the axis to an exterior edge of the bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg), such that the bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) is configured to restrict engagement of each of the plurality of cutting tools with the material ( [0070]).
Annotated pictures: Weinberg figure2 and figure 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
677
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim2, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 1 as explained above.
Weinberg further discloses, or wherein at least two adjacent of the plurality of tool holders (fig.4, 118) are coupled to the tubular body offset from each other by between about 5˚ and about 85˚ (see fig.6, “OA”, tool holders 118 are offset between 5˚ and 85˚).
In Re Claim16, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 1. Weinberg further discloses the bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) is coupled to the outer surface of the cutting drum (fig.4, 111) between adjacent ones of the plurality of teeth holders (fig.4, 118, tool and teeth holders are considered as same) or wherein the at least one guide plate (fig.6, 120) is a plurality of guide plates (fig.6 shows plurality of guide plates) and at least some of the plurality of tool holders (fig.4, 118, note that teeth holders and tool holders are same as they can hold both teeth and tool) are coupled to the outer surface of the cutting drum (fig.4, 111) between abutting ones of the plurality of guide plates (fig.5, 120).
In Re Claim20, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 1. Weinberg further discloses a trailing end (fig.41, 424b) of a respective one of the plurality of guide plates (fig.4, 120) comprises a debris recess configured to create a debris release area (fig.41, “DR”, see annotated picture below) with a respective one of the plurality of cutting tools (fig.41, 115) when fastened in a respective one of the plurality of tool holders (fig.41, 118).
Annotated picture: Weinberg (fig.41)
PNG
media_image2.png
419
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim21, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head(fig.4, 110) of claim 1. Weinberg further discloses the cutting drum (fig.4, 111) further comprises a first mounting plate (fig.1, “FMP”, see annotated picture above) coupled to the tubular body on the first side and a second mounting plate (fig.1, “SMP”, see annotated picture above) coupled to the tubular body on the second side, the first mounting plate (“FMP”, see annotated picture above) having a first coupling interface for operatively connecting with a first rotational shaft (fig.5, “FRS”, see annotated picture below, also see §[0061]) and the second mounting plate (fig.1, “SMP”, see annotated picture above) having a second coupling interface for operatively connecting with a second rotational shaft (fig.5, “SRS”, see annotated picture below, also see §[0061]), wherein a first axial distance (fig.5, “D1”, see annotated picture below) between the axial center (fig.5, “CX”, see annotated figure below) and the first mounting plate (fig.1, “FMP”, see annotated picture above) is larger than a second axial distance (fig.5, “D2”, see annotated picture below) between the axial center (fig.5, “CX”, see annotated picture below) and the second mounting plate (fig.1, “SMP”, see annotated picture above) and wherein the second mounting plate (fig.1, “SMP”, see annotated picture above) is coupled to an interior wall of the tubular body between the axial center and a second end of the tubular body on the second side to create a cavity within a hollow interior (§[0063]) of the tubular body.
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(s) 3-4, 6-10, 13-15, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg (US- 20200016602)_in view of Rabaud (EP-2669013-A1).
In Re Claim3, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 1 as explained above.
Weinberg is silent about the bite limiter assembly has a helix configuration, a double helix configuration, a congruent double helix, or an angled configuration.
However, Rabaud teaches has a helix configuration ((fig.6, 20, referred as helical spirals, also see abstract), a double helix configuration (fig.7, 20’ and 20’’), a congruent double helix (fig.8, 20’ and 20’’, also see page8, para7 where concentric helix pair is taught), or an angled configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head with bite limiter assembly of Weinberg and make the bite limiter assembly a helix, a double helix, a congruent double helix configuration as taught by Rabaud to assure or facilitate centering of the plants toward the axis of the opening (abstract).
In Re Claim4, which depends on claim3: Weinberg in view of discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 3. Rabaud further teaches the angle to the rotational axis is a helical angle between about 45˚ and about 85˚ (fig.6, “HA”, see annotated picture below).
Annotated picture: Rabaud (fig.6, zoomed)
PNG
media_image3.png
414
587
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim6, which depends on claim2: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 2. Weinberg further discloses the at least one guide plate (fig.4, 120) and the plurality of tool holders (fig.4, 118) are coupled to the tubular body with a pitch (fig.5, “P”, see annotated picture below).
Weinberg is silent about a chirality that is substantially the same.
However, Rabaud teaches chirality of guide plate (fig.7, 20’, 20’’, note that left side of the guide plates (20’ & 20’’) has chirality lefthanded double helix).
Both Weinberg and Rabaud are silent about the chirality of tool holders.
Note, however that, after modification, if the tool holders/tools are positioned between the guide plates as they are in Weinberg, the tool holders/tools would be helical and chiral since the guide plates of Rabaud are helical and chiral on the opposite sides of the cutting drum. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head of Weinberg and make tool holders and guide plates chiral as taught by Rabaud to assure or facilitate centering of the plants toward the axis of the opening (see attached translation of Rabaud, page1, abstract last line, please note that guide plates are referred as helical spirals).
Annotated picture: Weinberg (fig.5)
PNG
media_image4.png
611
875
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim7, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 1.
Weinberg further discloses the at least one guide plate (fig.5, 120).
Weinberg is silent about a plurality of first guide plates forming a first helix on the first side of the tubular body and a plurality of second guide plates forming a second helix on the second side of the tubular body ; and wherein the bite limiter assembly comprises a first guide plate and a second guide plate forming a first double helix on the first side of the tubular body and a third guide plate and a fourth guide plate forming a second double helix on the second side of the tubular body.
However, Rabaud teaches a plurality of first guide plates (fig.7, “FGP”, see annotated figure below) forming a first helix (fig.7, “FH”, see annotated picture below, note that there is two helix one on each side) on the first side (fig.7, “FS”, see annotated figure below) of the tubular body (fig.7, 30, referred as drum) and a plurality of second guide plates (fig.7, “SGP”, see annotated picture below) forming a second helix (fig.7, “SH”, see annotated figure below) on the second side (fig.7, “SS”, see annotated figure below) of the tubular body (fig.7, 30); and wherein the bite limiter assembly comprises a first guide plate (fig.7, 20’) and a second guide plate (fig.7, 20”) forming a first double helix (fig.7, 20’ and 20”on the first side form double helix) on the first side of the tubular body (fig.7, 30) and a third guide plate (fig.7, 20’, on second side) and a fourth guide (fig.7, 20”, on second side) plate forming a second double helix (fig.7, 20’ and 20”, on the second side form double helix) on the second side of the tubular body (fig.7, 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head of Weinberg and include double helix bite limiter assemblies as taught by Rabaud for the purpose of recentering of the plants(see attached translation, page8, para7).
Annotated picture: (Rabaud, fig.7)
PNG
media_image5.png
719
1106
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim8, which depends on claim7: Weinberg in view of Rabaud discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 7. Rabaud further teaches the plurality of first guide plates (fig.7, “FGP”, see annotated figure above) and the plurality of second guide plates (fig.7, “SGP”, see annotated picture above) each comprise at least one major guide plate (fig.7, “MGP”, see annotated figure above) and at least one minor guide plate (fig.7, “MNP”, see annotated figure above).
In Re Claim9, which depends on claim7: Weinberg in view of Rabaud discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 7. Rabaud further teaches a first chirality of the first helix (fig.7, “FH”, see annotated figure above) is the opposite to a second chirality of the second helix (fig.7, “SH”, see annotated figure above). Note that the first chirality of the first helix is lefthanded as can be seen on left side in above figure and second chirality of the second helix is righthanded as can be seen on right side making them opposite to each other.
In Re Claim10, which depends on claim7: Weinberg in view of Rabaud discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 7. Weinberg further discloses about at least one guide plate (fig.5, 120) further comprises a center guide plate (fig.5, “CGP”, see annotated figure above) coupled to the tubular body (fig.5, 111) at or near the center axis (fig.5, “CX”, see annotated picture above) substantially parallel with the center axis (“CX”).
In Re Claim13, which depends on claim7: Weinberg in view of Rabaud discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 7.
Weinberg is silent about the at least one guide plate further comprises a first connection plate and a second connection plate, wherein the first guide plate and the third guide plate are coupled at respective ends thereof to the first connection plate and the second guide plate and the fourth guide plate are coupled at respective ends thereof to the second connection plate.
However, Rabaud teaches the at least one guide plate further comprises a first connection plate (fig.7, “P3”, see annotated figure below) and a second connection plate (fig.7, “P5”, see annotated figure below), wherein the first guide plate (fig.7, “P2”, see annotated figure below) and the third guide plate (fig.7, “P5”, see annotated figure below) are coupled at respective ends thereof to the first connection plate (fig.7, “P3”, see annotated figure below) and the second guide plate (fig.7, “P6”, see annotated figure below) and the fourth guide plate (fig.7, “P4”, see annotated figure below) are coupled at respective ends thereof to the second connection plate (fig.7, “P5”, see annotated figure below).
Annotated figure: (Rabaud, fig.7)
PNG
media_image6.png
764
1101
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim14, which depends on claim1: Weinberg in view of Rabaud discloses the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 7. Rabaud further teaches a first chirality of the first double helix (fig.7, chirality of 20’ and 20” on the first side (“FS”, see above figure) is lefthanded) is the opposite to a second chirality of the second double helix (fig.7, chirality of 20’ and 20” on the second side (“SS”, see above figure) is righthanded).
In Re Claim15, which depends on claim1: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher (fig.4, 110) of claim 1.
Weinberg is silent about the at least one guide plate is configured to orient a shredded material one of: towards the first side of the cutting drum; towards the second side of the cutting drum; towards the axial center of the cutting drum; or toward the first side and the second side of the cutting drum.
However, Rabaud teaches the at least one guide plate (fig.6, 20) is configured to orient a shredded material: towards the axial center (fig.6, C) of the cutting drum (fig.7, 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head of Weinberg and configure the at least one guide plate to guide the material towards the center of the drum as taught by Rabaud for the purpose of facilitating the passage of the plants (see attached translation, page9, para4, lines 7-9).
In Re Claim30, Weinberg discloses a cutting drum (fig.4, 111 ) configured to mount onto a frame for shredding a material (§[0002]), the cutting drum (fig.4, 111) comprising : a tubular body having an axial center (fig.5, 112), a first side and a second side (fig.5); a plurality of tool holders (fig.5, 118) each configured to receive one of a plurality of cutter tools (fig.5, 116) with at least one edge for shredding the material, the plurality of tool holders (fig.5, 118) operatively coupled to an outer surface of the tubular body; and a bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) operatively coupled to the outer surface of the tubular body; wherein the bite limiter assembly (fig.5, 120, note that guide plate and bite limiter are same for Weinberg) is coupled to the tubular body; and wherein the bite guard (fig.5, 120) is configured to restrict a depth of engagement (§[0070]) of each of the plurality of cutting tools (fig.5, 116) with the material.
Weinberg is silent about a bite limiter assembly with a helix configuration
However, Rabaud teaches the bite limiter assembly (fig.6, 20) is a helix configuration (fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head disclosed by Weinberg and make the bite limiter assembly a helix configuration as taught by Rabaud for the purpose of facilitating centering of the plants towards the axis (see attached translation, abstract).
Claim(s) 23, 25-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinberg in view of Rabaud as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Daining (US-20150250087-A1).
In Re Claim23, which depends on claim21: Weinberg anticipates the mulcher head (fig.4, 110) of claim 21.
Weinberg in view of Rabaud is silent about further comprising at least one of : a mounting flange operatively coupled to the second rotational shaft in the cavity for securing a motor in the cavity; and a debris guard on the cutting drum, the debris guard comprising a first groove on a first end of the first side and a second groove on a second end of the second side.
However, Daining teaches about a mounting flange (fig.13, 158) operatively coupled to the second rotational shaft (fig.13, 146) in the cavity for securing a motor (fig.6, 140) in the cavity (fig.5, 156);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mulcher head disclosed by Weinberg and include a mounting flange with a rotational shaft as taught by Daining for the purpose of rotatably support the rotor drive shaft (§[0069]).
In Re Claims 25, 26, and 28, since the debris guard was not selected in claim 23, the limitations within the claims do not need to be found.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights