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
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to as the form of claims is improper. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, as in the instant claims, each element or step should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(m) and 37 CFR 1.75(i).
Further, claim 1, line 3-4, should read “
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 1-14 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 "this". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "this". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the language “or is formed by this” (claim 3) is non-sensical and indefinite as it is not clear what is being defined by “formed by this”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "they". Further, the language “an envisaged rotation direction until they are present” (claim 11) is non-sensical as it is unclear how one defines a scope for “an envisaged rotation direction”. Claim 12 is similarly flawed. Indeed, claims 11 and dependent claim 12 are regarded as unexaminable due to the unclear scope.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "it". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "they". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further, regarding method claim 14, the specific steps that comprise the method are unclear as the claim does not positively recite method steps (see e.g., claim language using “wherein” and “capable of” making it unclear what actual method steps are being claimed). Examiner recommends using gerund phrasing that clearly and positively defines the method steps (e.g., synchronizing rotational movement of the inertial weights of the drive modules) and also recommends Applicant clearly set forth what specific elements of the device claim are required in the method as claim 1 has only been referenced in the preamble of claim 14 so it is unclear if all of the claim 1 elements are necessary to perform the method of claim 14.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mock et al. (“Mock”)(US 3,422,955) in view of Moosmann et al. (“Moosmann”)(US 9,108,222) .
Mock (fig. 6-8) teaches a machine for fractionating ground cereal products (col. 1, ln. 10-46 teaching providing gyratory motion to stacked sieve devices via eccentric weights to purify “flour, grain, cereal flakes and other similar materials”)
(re: certain elements of base claim 1) a sieve stack having an upper sieve stack and a lower sieve stack (fig. 7 showing that an upper and lower sieve stack near 180 located above and below a drive module chamber 156; col. 7, ln. 55-68 and col. 8, ln. 25-35 teaching that equal number of sieves are disposed both above and below drive module),
a drive module being between the upper and the lower sieve stack (col. 7, ln. 40-55 and col. 8, ln. 35-55 teaching drive module comprising prime mover and eccentric weight connected to an electric motor 176, wherein rotation of eccentric weight provides gyratory motion to sieve stacks to classify particulate material therein);
wherein the drive modules each comprise an electric motor and an inertial weight configured for rotation movement (Id.);
(re: certain elements of claim 3) wherein the drive modules each comprise a shaft which is rotatable relative to a base body (fig. 7 showing central shaft near 171 mounted on a base body, i.e., bottom of drive module housing near 158);
wherein the electric motors each comprise a stator and a rotor and wherein the rotor is connected to the shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (inherent in functioning of electric motor)
(re: certain elements of claim 6) wherein the drive module each comprise a housing with a rectangular layout (fig. 7 showing rectangular layout near 156);
(re: certain elements of claim 7) a mount, in which the drive module is received (fig. 7 showing that drive module is mounted within a housing near 156);
Mock (fig. 6-8) teaches a method for operating a machine of claim 1 comprising
(re: certain elements of base claim 14) rotating an inertial weight of the drive module while the sieve stacks are mounted on the drive module, wherein the sieve stacks are capable of circling horizontal oscillations (col. 8, ln. 35-55 wherein rotation of eccentric weight provides gyratory motion to sieve stacks to classify particulate material therein).
Mock as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 1) a plurality of sieve stack pairs being arranged next to one another,
a drive module between the upper and the lower sieve stack of the plurality of the sieve stack pairs;
(re: claim 2) which is configured to synchronously drive the inertial weights of the drive modules;
(re: certain elements of claim 14) synchronizing rotational movement of the inertial weights of the drive modules.
With respect to base claims 1 and 14:
Moosmann teaches that it is well-known in the sifting arts to configure a sieve stack as a plurality of sieve stack pairs to increase the feed rate of the fractionation process and that the drive modules can be synchronized across multiple sieve stacks to allow easier control of the oscillation motion via the drive means (fig. 11, 12 showing plurality of sieve stacks pairs 14 with drive modules linked to motor 6; col. 3, ln. 25-45; col. 5, ln. 39-66 teaching “synchronous, oscillating motion” and col. 9, ln. 41-col. 10, ln. 23 teaching that sieve stack pairs and drive modules can be synchronized via a common belt 24 linked to a motor 6).
With respect to claims 2, 3 and 6-7:
Moosmann as set forth above teaches that a fractionator can be configured with a plurality of sieve stack pairs with respective drive modules to increase scalability and throughput of sieving and that one with ordinary skill in the art would know to synchronize the inertial weights of the respective drive modules using a linkage that is connected to a common drive motor (Id.).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., sieve stack pairs with common drive means) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mock for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 3-5, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mock and Moosmann (“Mock et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Fiorini (US 2004/0040895), Jones et al. (“Jones”)(US 2019/0145201), Tripette (FR 1426099) and legal precedent.
Mock et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein the electric motors are synchronous motors with permanent magnets;
(re: claim 5) wherein the drive modules each comprise a plurality of through-channels, through which shares of ground cereal product can get from the upper sieve stack to the lower sieve;
(re: claim 8) wherein the mount comprises fastening structures for a suspension device for suspending the machine, and
wherein the upper sieve stacks lie directly or indirectly on the mount and the lower sieve stacks are suspended directly or indirectly on the mount;
(re: claim 9) wherein the mount receives electric leads for supplying the electric motors of the drive modules;
(re: claim 10) wherein the electric motors of a plurality of drive modules are fed by a common power stage;
(re: claim 13) wherein a speed of the inertial weights is selectable and wherein the machine is configured such that the speed can be read off.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the stator and rotor (re: claim 3) may be regarded as not inherently taught.
With respect to claims 5, 8:
Tripette teaches that is it well-known to configure a plansifter comprising upper and lower sieve stacks with a through-channel via the drive module to allow further sifting of the particles (fig. 1 near 2) and to provide a suspension device with indirect side mounts to distribute loads/stresses in the gyratory sifter (fig. 1 near 9).
With respect to claim 8:
Fiorini also teaches that it is well-known to indirectly mount upper and lower sieve stacks on a mount including a suspension device located at a midpoint of the stacks for optimal distribution of the structural stresses experienced during gyrating movement (fig. 1, 3 showing suspension devices 27 connected to a side mount with fastening elements that indirectly suspends pairs of sieve stacks; para. 31-32).
With respect to claims 3, 4 and 13:
Jones teaches that it is well-known to configure motors with permanent magnets and to have a controller that allows monitoring of the motor variables and vibration profiles (fig. 3A showing servo motors of rotor/stator designs with synchronized permanent magnets 334 and 336; fig. 3B showing controller 360 and para. 29-33 teaching that controller allows configuration of servomotors that includes setting vibration profiles and allows monitor of motor and separator variables).
With respect to claim 9, 10 and 13:
Indeed, the claimed features relating to the speed selected for the inertial weights or the configuration of the electric leads or power stage can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the sifting arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Mock et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
February 5, 2026