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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18549815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application (18849714) claims are broader in at least one aspect and do not recite additional features claimed in co-pending application (18549815) claims.
For independent claim 1:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the present application claims, the following comparison between the present application claims and the co-pending application claims highlights (see underlined features in the co-pending application claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the present application claims.
Co-pending application (18549815) claim 1
Present application (18849714) claim 1.
Apparatus for grinding lumpy material,
which apparatus comprises a grinding plate rotating around a vertical axis of rotation on the horizontal plane, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed, and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs, which rotate by the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, and that in the apparatus is a plurality of grinding disc units comprising grinding disc,
each of which grinding disc units is suspended on its own drive shaft, which drive shafts are parallel with the axis of rotation of the grinding plate, characterized in that the apparatus comprises a revolver mechanism for changing the angle of the plane of rotation (RP) of the grinding discs by turning the shaft of the grinding discs in the horizontal direction with respect to a line in the direction of the radius of the grinding plate, which revolver mechanism preferably comprises e.g. a pressure cylinder and an articulation mechanism suited to the purpose
a fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material,
the apparatus comprising a grinding plate rotating on the horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed, and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs, which rotate from the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more refiner elements pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18549815. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present application (18849714) claims are broader in at least one aspect and do not recite additional features claimed in co-pending application (18549815) claims.
For dependent claim 2:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the present application claims, the following comparison between the present application claims and the co-pending application claims highlights (see underlined features in the co-pending application claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the present application claims.
Co-pending application (18549815) claim 1
Present application (18849714) claim 2; claim 2 depends from claim 1
Apparatus for grinding lumpy material,
which apparatus comprises a grinding plate rotating around a vertical axis of rotation on the horizontal plane, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed, and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs, which rotate by the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, and that in the apparatus is a plurality of grinding disc units comprising grinding disc,
each of which grinding disc units is suspended on its own drive shaft, which drive shafts are parallel with the axis of rotation of the grinding plate,
characterized in that the apparatus comprises a revolver mechanism for changing the angle of the plane of rotation (RP) of the grinding discs by turning the shaft of the grinding discs in the horizontal direction with respect to a line in the direction of the radius of the grinding plate, which revolver mechanism preferably comprises e.g. a pressure cylinder and an articulation mechanism suited to the purpose
a fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material,
the apparatus comprising a grinding plate rotating on the horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed, and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs, which rotate from the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more refiner elements pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate.
2. Fine grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a rotator unit with motor for rotating the refiner element around the vertical axis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “Fine grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises” should be changed to “The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprising”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprising a rotator shaft having a bottom end to be fastened to the refiner element for rotating the refiner element, in such a way that a plane of rotation of a bottom surface of the refiner element is parallel with a plane of rotation of the top surface of the grinding plate.
Regarding claim 4, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprising an adjustable support means for adjusting a distance of the refiner element with respect to the top surface of the grinding plat.
Regarding claim 5, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the rotator shaft is mounted on bearings in a manner allowing rotation inside a body pipe, wherein the body pipe is suspended on a cover of a frame part of the apparatus by means of a flexible element.
Regarding claim 6, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the apparatus further comprising a vibrator device, the vibrator device having actuators for bringing about a vibration motion in the body pipe, wherein the body pipe is adapted to transmit the vibration motion to the rotator shaft enabled by the flexible element.
Regarding claim 7, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the refiner element is a disc-like element having hole located at a center of the disc-like element, the hole in connection with a hole inner part of a bottom surface of the rotator shaft; and wherein the disc-like element having a bottom surface with an outer edge; the disc-like element having grooves opening downwards, the grooves extending from the hole to the outer edge.
Regarding claim 8, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 7, wherein a pressure source is connected to the rotator shaft for bringing about an air flow inside the hollow inner part to produce either negative pressure suction or positive pressure blowing between the grinding plate and the refiner element.
Regarding claim 9, the claim should be re-written as following:
The fine grinding apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the apparatus further comprising a control valve for controlling and changing a direction of the air flow produced by the pressure source to produce either the negative pressure for suction or the positive pressure for blowing.
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 1-9 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 1 recites the limitation "the horizontal plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the top surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed, and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the effect" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rotation motion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “one or more refiner elements pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear why having “one or more refiner elements pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted claim 1 as following:
A fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material, the apparatus comprising:
a grinding plate rotating on a horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, the grinding plate having a top surface to receive the material to be ground,
a plurality of grinding discs to be rotated from an effect of a rotating motion of the grinding plate to compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, and
wherein the apparatus further comprising one or more refiner elements pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate in order to the ground material to be kneaded on the top surface of the grinding plate.
Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the horizontal plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite, it appears claim 5 should be depends from claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the cover" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the frame part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 7, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite, it appears claim 7 should be depends from claim 3.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the center" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the hollow inner part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outer edge" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite, it appears claim 8 should be depends from claim 7.
Regrading claim 8, the phrase “the hollow shaft” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the hollow shaft” is the same as or different from “the rotator shaft”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase " if necessary" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the direction" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfgang (US3458142A).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfgang discloses a fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material (col.2-col.3), the apparatus comprising a grinding plate (fig.1: (16)) rotating on the horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed (fig.1: (12)), and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs (fig.2: any two of the elements (18)), which rotate from the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more refiner elements (fig.2: any one of the elements (18)) pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tiggesbaumker (US3951347A).
Regarding claim 1, Wolfgang discloses a fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material (col.2 last 14 lines-col.3), the apparatus comprising a grinding plate (fig.1: (4)) rotating on the horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed (fig.1: (16)), and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs (fig.1: left elements (5)), which rotate from the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more refiner elements (fig.1: right elements (5)) pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haase (US20150298133A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haase discloses a fine grinding apparatus for grinding granular material (abstract and paragraphs 0059-0062), the apparatus comprising a grinding plate (fig.1: (5)) rotating on the horizontal plane around a vertical rotation axis, onto the top surface of which the material to be ground can be fed (fig.1: the material is fed from the top), and on the top surface of which grinding plate is a plurality of grinding discs (fig.1: two of the elements (4)), which rotate from the effect of the rotating motion of the grinding plate and compress the material to be ground against the grinding plate, wherein the apparatus comprises one or more refiner elements (fig.1: one of the elements (4)) pressing against the top surface of the grinding plate.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the closet prior art is Wolfgang (US3458142A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “wherein the apparatus comprises a rotator unit with motor for rotating the refiner element around the vertical axis” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the closet prior art is Wolfgang (US3458142A), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “wherein the apparatus comprises one or more vertical rotator shafts, onto the bottom end of which is fastened a refiner element to rotate along with the rotator shaft in such a way that the plane of rotation of the bottom surface of the refiner element is parallel with the plane of rotation of the top surface of the grinding plate” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 2 and 3would 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights