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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 line 1 “wherein the one or more cutter mounts include a first cutter mount and a second cutter mount” should be –wherein the plurality of cutter mounts include a first cutter mount and a second cutter mount— as it depends from claim 10 which recites “wherein the one or more cutter mounts include a plurality of cutter mounts”, and since a first and second cutter mount inherently requires more than one cutter mount.
Chaim 13 lines 5-6 “at least one second coupler face is configured to engage at least one first coupling face” should be –the at least one second coupler face is configured to engage the at least one first coupling face--. Note that “at least one first coupler face” and “at least one second coupler face” is positively set forth in claim 13 lines 2-4.
Claim 16 line 4 “a second cutter holder according claim 1” should be --a second cutter holder according to claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-13, 15-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte-Frankenfeld (DE 4314223 C1) in view of Rota (WO 03061833 A1).
It is noted that all citations to Schulte-Frankenfeld (DE 4314223 C1) are in reference to the corresponding English-translated document attached by the Examiner under NPL documents.
Regarding claim 1, Schulte-Frankenfeld discloses a cutter holder for facilitating plant material cutting, the cutter holder comprising:
a base (8) configured to rotationally couple to a driver (6) and to rotate about an axis of rotation of the base during operation (Fig. 2, rotation about mounting hole 19);
one or more cutter mounts (designated below) coupled to the base, each of the one or more cutter mounts formed with a respective cutter (i.e. leading cutting edges of 14) to facilitate cutting of plant material by the cutter when the base is rotated about the axis of rotation by the driver;
a first coupler (15) coupled to the base; and
a second coupler (18) coupled to the base, the second coupler axially spaced from the first coupler (as seen in Fig. 4) and configured to rotationally couple to a first coupler (projections 15 of next disc 8) of a further cutter holder (para. [0023] “the projections 15 of one knife disc 8 are completely received by the recesses…18 of the other knife disc 8”).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image 1 of Schulte-Frankenfeld’s Fig. 2
Schulte-Frankenfeld therefore teaches wherein the cutters are integrally formed instead of removably held by the cutter mounts.
In the same area, Rota discloses a similar shredding disc (10, Fig. 1) comprising a body (12) having a plurality of circumferentially spaced cutter mounts (28) extending therefrom, each mount configured to removably hold a respective cutter (20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the cutters of Schulte-Frankenfeld to be removable held by the cutter mounts, as taught by Rota, in order to extend the useful life of the machine by allowing for replacement of only worn parts as required, further saving time and costs associated with storage/maintenance of parts (Rota, page 2 paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein each of the one or more cutter mounts includes an integral mount portion integral with the base and disposed radially outward from the base (as seen in Fig. 2, cutter mounts are integral with the base 8 and extend radially outward therefrom).
Regarding claim 3, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 2. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the integral mount portion of each of the one or more cutter mounts includes a cutter engaging face (designated below) configured to abut a cutter when the cutter is held by the cutter mount (inherent from combination), the cutter engaging face generally perpendicular to a direction of travel of the cutter engaging face when the base (8) is rotated about the axis of rotation (as seen in Fig. 2 and below, cutter-engaging faces extend perpendicular to rotation direction of the discs).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image 2 of Schulte-Frankenfeld’s Fig. 2
Regarding claim 4, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 2. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the integral mount portion of each of the one or more cutter mounts includes a bite limiter (i.e. rearwardly-extending fins acts as bite limiters which limit the amount of material removed per instance of contact).
Regarding claim 5, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 4. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the integral mount portion includes a cutter mount body, the bite limiter extending from the cutter mount body (fins extend rearwardly from a leading end portion of the mounts), but does not explicitly detail wherein the bite limiter is axially narrower than the cutter mount body.
Rota discloses a similar shredding disc described above comprising a leading cutter mount body (28) and a trailing a bite limiter (14), wherein the bite limiter is axially narrower than the cutter mount body (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bite limiter to be narrower than the cutter mount body, as taught by Rota, as a mere simple substitution of one known bite limiter arrangement for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the first and second couplers (15,18) are integral with the base (Fig. 4, para. [0026] “recesses 18 on the second side of the cutter disc 8 are formed by the deformation process to shape the cam-shaped projections 15”).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the base (8) includes a ring (surrounding mounting hole 19) configured to engage and encircle a drive shaft (5 + 12) configured to be driven by the driver (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1, wherein the one or more cutter mounts include a plurality of cutter mounts (Schulte-Frankenfeld at Fig. 2) each of the plurality of cutter mounts configured to hold a respective cutter.
Regarding claim 11, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 10. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the one or more cutter mounts include a first cutter mount and a second cutter mount (Fig. 2), the second cutter mount angularly displaced from the first cutter mount by about 180 degrees about the axis of rotation (as seen in annotated image below, leading portion of one cutter mount is angularly displaced 180° from trailing portion of another cutter mount).
PNG
media_image3.png
397
529
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image 3 of Schulte-Frankenfeld’s Fig. 2
Regarding claim 12, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the second coupler (18) is configured to removably couple to the first coupler (15) of the further cutter holder (para. [0023] “On its other, second side, the knife disc 8 has…recesses…18 which are positively fitted to the projections 15 on the first side of the knife disc 8”).
Regarding claim 13, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1 wherein the first coupler (15) includes at least one first coupler face (outward-facing circumferential surface of cylindrical projection 15 forms a curved face) that extends radially from and parallel to the axis of rotation and the second coupler (18) includes at least one second coupler face (inward-facing circumferential surface of depression 18 forms a curved face) that extends radially from and parallel to the axis of rotation such that the at least one second coupler face is configured to engage the at least one first coupling face of the further cutter holder to rotationally couple to the first coupler of the further cutter holder (para. [0023] “On its other, second side, the knife disc 8 has…recesses…18 which are positively fitted to the projections 15 on the first side of the knife disc 8…accordingly the projections 15 of one knife disc 8 are completely received by the recesses…18 of the other knife disc 8”).
Regarding claim 15, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more cutter mounts is configured to releasably hold the respective cutter (inherent from combination).
Regarding claim 16, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses an apparatus for facilitating plant material cutting, the apparatus comprising:
a first cutter holder (“one knife disc 8”/”first knife disc 8” of Schulte-Frankenfeld) according to claim 1;
a second cutter holder (“next knife disc 8”/”other knife disc 8” of Schulte-Frankenfeld) according to claim 1, the first coupler (15) of the second cutter holder coupled to the second coupler (18) of the first cutter holder to rotationally couple the first and second cutter holders (para. [0023] “the projections 15 of one knife disc 8 are completely received by the recesses…18 of the other knife disc 8”).
Regarding claims 17-18, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the apparatus of claim 16. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the first coupler (15) of the second cutter holder is coupled to the second coupler (18) of the first cutter holder such that the first cutter holder is rotationally offset from the second cutter holder by a first offset angle, as per claim 17, and further comprising a third cutter holder according to claim 1, the first coupler (15) of the third cutter holder coupled to the second coupler (18) of the second cutter holder to rotationally couple the first, second, and third cutter holders such that the first cutter holder is rotationally offset from the third cutter holder by a second offset angle, as per claim 18 (para. [0024] “the division of the projections 15 and the recesses 17, 18…allows for four different engagement positions of two adjacent cutter discs 8” to provide “an irregular arrangement of the cutting edges around the circumference of the entire set of knives…in which the cutting edge then protrudes like individual teeth”, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses a system for facilitating plant material cutting, the system comprising the apparatus of claim 16 and a plurality of cutters, each of the cutter mounts of the cutter holders of the apparatus holding a respective one of the plurality of cutters (inherent from combination).
Regarding claim 20, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the system of claim 19 further comprising. Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches a driver (6) coupled to the bases (8) of the cutter holders of the apparatus, the driver configured to rotate the cutter holders and the plurality of cutters to cause the cutters to cut plant material (para. [0019-0020]).
Regarding claim 21, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses a method of manufacturing a cutter holder for facilitating plant material cutting, the method comprising machining a single integral workpiece of material by removal of material to produce the cutter holder of claim 1 (Schulte-Frankenfeld at para. [0011] teaches indentations in the form of through holes can be punched during the deformation process of the knife discs, i.e. at least partially uses a subtractive manufacturing process).
Regarding claim 24, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses method of manufacturing a cutter holder for facilitating plant material cutting, the method comprising forging the cutter holder of claim 1 from a single integral workpiece of material (Schulte-Frankenfeld at para. [0011] “the projections are integrally formed on the knife discs…by stamping or cold forging”).
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamaki et al. (US 20130015280 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1.
Schulte-Frankenfeld fails to teach wherein the base (8) includes at least one convex outer surface portion disposed radially inward of the one or more cutter mounts, as per claim 8, wherein the at least one convex outer surface portion includes at least one cylindrical surface portion centered on the axis of rotation, as per claim 9.
In the same area of disc shredders, Tamaki discloses a similar cutter disk (3) comprising a base having convex outer surface portions (34 + 35) disposed radially inward of a plurality of circumferentially spaced cutters (32), wherein the convex outer surface portion includes a protruding cylindrical surface portion (341 + 351) centered on the axis of rotation (Figs. 4-5 and 11, para. [0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize convex outer surface portions on the base of Schulte-Frankenfeld as the first and second couplers, as taught by Tamaki, as a mere simple substitution of one engagement configuration for coupling adjacent shredder disks for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses the cutter holder of claim 1.
Schulte-Frankenfeld further teaches wherein the first coupler (15) includes three protrusions extending axially (while only two protrusions 15 are shown in Fig. 4, para. [0022] teaches that several such protrusions 15 can also be arranged at regular intervals), but fails to teach wherein the second coupler (18) includes three protrusions extending axially (i.e. Schulte-Frankenfeld discloses depressions 18 instead of protrusions).
In the same area of disc shredders, Tamaki discloses a similar cutter disk (3, Figs. 4-5) described above, wherein the disk comprises a first coupler (on side 3a) having at least three protrusions (35) extending axially and a second coupler (on side 3b) having at least three protrusions (35) extending axially, the protrusions configured to rotationally couple adjacent cutter disks (Fig. 11, para. [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize protrusions as the first and second couplers of Schulte-Frankenfeld, as taught by Tamaki, as a mere simple substitution of one engagement configuration for interlocking adjacent shredder disks for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Lavigne et al. (US 20210144899 A1)
Regarding claim 22, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses a system for manufacturing a cutter holder for facilitating plant material cutting, but does not explicitly detail the system comprising a milling machine configured to perform the method of claim 21.
Lavigne discloses a process for manufacturing an agricultural disc, wherein the manufacturing process the manufacturing process includes die-cutting, cold forming, machining (by shaving removal), drilling, and/or hot forming (para. [0064-0069]), wherein the machining process is performed by means of a milling machine (para. [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the cutter holder of Schulte-Frankenfeld at least in part from machining via milling machine, as taught by Lavigne, as a mere simple substitution of one well-known manufacturing process for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20100163663 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Schulte-Frankenfeld in view of Rota discloses a method of manufacturing a cutter holder for facilitating plant material cutting, but does not explicitly detail the method comprising casting the cutter holder of claim 1.
In the same area, Chen discloses a similar shredding disc (10) made by die casting (para. [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the cutter holder of Schulte-Frankenfeld at least in part from die-casting, as taught by Chen, as a mere simple substitution of one well-known manufacturing process for another to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gutenkunst (US 0578234 A) discloses a fodder shredder. Allen et al. (US 0872321 A) discloses a grinding mill. Rossler (US 3662964 A) discloses a comminuting machine. Brewer (US 4082232 A) discloses a shredder structure. Brewer (US 4125228 A) discloses a shredder. Brewer (US 4350308 A) discloses a shredding machine. Lloyd (US 4494365 A) discloses a mower cutting unit. Langlois (US 20040217223 A1) discloses a grinder cutter tooth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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 Sebesta, can be reached on (571) 272-0547. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights