DETAILED ACTION
Representative Figure
PNG
media_image1.png
544
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Application Data
PNG
media_image2.png
270
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 13 and 15 specify, “a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor to convey the one or more filtered objects along the debris chute, the drive motor having a drive axis that is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”. Dependent claim 17 specifies, “wherein the drive assembly includes a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor, a drive axis of the drive motor being substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor.” This language does not find basis in the originally filed disclosure.
As depicted in Applicant’s Figures 15 and 16, the motor, which is not identified with a specific reference numeral, is offset from the longitudinal axis (202) of the screw conveyor, and not “substantially aligned” therewith. Some type of non-disclosed, non-labeled transmission mechanism (e.g., gear(s) or chain drive?) conveys power from the unlabeled motor to the offset screw conveyor. The “transmission”, “motor” and the “drive axis” of the motor are called-out by Examiner aided annotations in Fig. 16 below.
Applicant’s disclosure teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
304
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
850
670
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in the Examiner annotated Fig. 16 above, the “drive axis” (see Examiner added double-headed arrow in Fig. 16.) of Applicant’s unlabeled motor is offset from the axis “202” of the screw conveyer. Interposed between the motor and shaft of the screw conveyor is at least one, or perhaps a plurality of components, which would necessarily increase the maintenance requirements and overall wear and tear on the receiving station, and present at least one more component that could fail. These two axes are not “substantially aligned”.
The language above added to independent claims 13 and 15, and in new dependent claim 17, does not enjoy clear, positive, antecedent basis in the originally filed disclosure. The added language constitutes prohibited new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 specifies, “wherein the debris removal assembly is configured such that a drive assembly that drives the screw conveyor is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”.
Applicant’s disclosure teaches:
PNG
media_image3.png
304
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It is unclear what Applicant intends by “drive assembly” as this language appears in claim 1. Although, described at “[0059]”, reference numeral 204 (“boxed” below) nebulously or vaguely refers to an “end” of the receiving station in Figs. 15 & 16. This ambiguous disclosure of the “drive assembly” renders this language indefinite.
PNG
media_image5.png
792
580
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Independent claims 13 and 15 specify, “a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor to the one or more filtered objects along the debris chute, the drive motor having a drive axis that is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”.
It is unclear what Applicant intends by “substantially aligned” and/or “drive assembly” as this language appears in independent claims 1,13,15, and new dependent claim 17. Absent an objective definition or objectively clear depiction of what “substantially aligned” and “drive assembly” intend, this language renders claims 1-17 indefinite. This language does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Consequently, a potential infringer would NOT be placed on NOTICE as to what constitutes infringement.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of ScreenCo Trash Master 400 as disclosed on YouTube on the 12th of MARCH 2020 (hereinafter “YouTube”; 2 minutes and 27 seconds in length; at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EfHEZNAr1g) and GREENROSE (U.S. 6,461,523 B1 - 2002).
YouTube discloses the claimed receiving station substantially as claimed. As Applicant, Scott Meyer owns ScreenCo, claim limitation correspondence should be self-evident. Screenshots from the video, some of which are Examiner annotated, is provided as a separate NPL document which is now cited as Screenshots from ScreenCo Trash Master 400 YouTube Video.
YouTube does not appear to disclose:
Claim 1 specifies, “wherein the debris removal assembly is configured such that a drive assembly that drives the screw conveyor is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”. Dependent from claim 1, claim 17 specifies, “wherein the drive assembly includes a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor, a drive axis of the drive motor being substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor.”
Independent claims 13 and 15 specify, “a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor to convey the one or more filtered objects along the debris chute, the drive motor having a drive axis that is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”.
GREENROSE discloses a separation apparatus, which employs a motor 40 (called out by Examiner added arrow below) whose drive axis is axially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the shaft of auger 38. In view of the teachings of GREENROSE, it would have been obvious to modify the system of YouTube to employ a motor whose drive axis is axially aligned with the shaft of auger of that system, in order to utilize fewer components, which would necessarily decrease the maintenance requirements and overall wear and tear on the receiving station, and present at least one fewer component that could fail, thereby improving system reliability. The modification of YouTube in view of GREENROSE is seen to meet the limitations added to claims 1,13,15 and new claim 17.
PNG
media_image6.png
1160
764
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of ScreenCo Trash Master 400 as disclosed on YouTube on the 12th of MARCH 2020 (hereinafter “YouTube”; 2 minutes and 27 seconds in length; at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EfHEZNAr1g) and DEWAARD (U.S. 10,603,675 B2 - 2020).
YouTube discloses the claimed receiving station substantially as claimed. As Applicant, Scott Meyer owns ScreenCo, claim limitation correspondence should be self-evident. Screenshots from the video, some of which are Examiner annotated, is provided as a separate NPL document which is now cited as Screenshots from ScreenCo Trash Master 400 YouTube Video.
YouTube does not appear to disclose:
Claim 1 specifies, “wherein the debris removal assembly is configured such that a drive assembly that drives the screw conveyor is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”. Dependent from claim 1, claim 17 specifies, “wherein the drive assembly includes a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor, a drive axis of the drive motor being substantially aligned with the longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor.”
Independent claims 13 and 15 specify, “a drive motor that rotates the screw conveyor to convey the one or more filtered objects along the debris chute, the drive motor having a drive axis that is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor”.
DEWAARD discloses a separation apparatus, which employs an auger drive motor 98 (called out by Examiner added arrow below) causes rotation of the axially aligned auger shaft 94. In view of the teachings of DEWAARD, it would have been obvious to modify the system of YouTube to employ a motor whose drive axis is axially aligned with the shaft of auger of that system, in order to utilize fewer components, which would necessarily decrease the maintenance requirements and overall wear and tear on the receiving station, and present at least one fewer component that could fail, thereby improving system reliability. The modification of YouTube in view of DEWAARD is seen to meet the limitations added to claims 1,13,15 and new claim 17.
PNG
media_image7.png
1060
694
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Art of Interest
Trash Master 400 Auto Screen
Screen shots taken from ScreenCo website (https://www.screencosystems.com/trash-master-400) on August 10, 2025.
PNG
media_image8.png
470
972
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
336
946
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
810
910
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Scott Meyer Linkedin Screenshot of 12 September 2025
PNG
media_image11.png
902
758
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image12.png
806
600
media_image12.png
Greyscale
With respect to independent claim 13, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image13.png
300
596
media_image13.png
Greyscale
With respect to independent claim 15, Applicant has argued:
PNG
media_image14.png
230
598
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments have been effective at removing the previous 35 USC §112(b) rejections. The drawing rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s clarifying remarks.
Applicant’s argument, “Because the "drive assembly that drives the screw conveyor is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the screw conveyor" certain components (e.g. a U-joint or other similar drive assembly components) may be eliminated from the drive assembly, thereby reducing the maintenance requirements and overall wear and tear on the receiving station” is not well received.
As depicted in Applicant’s Figures 15 and 16, the motor, which is not identified with a specific reference numeral, is offset from the longitudinal axis (202) of the screw conveyor, and not “substantially aligned” therewith. Some type of non-disclosed, non-labeled transmission mechanism (e.g., gear(s) or chain drive?) conveys power from the unlabeled motor to the offset screw conveyor. The “transmission”, “motor” and the “drive axis” of the motor are called-out by Examiner aided annotations in Fig. 16 above. Applicant’s non-disclosed, non-labeled transmission mechanism will most certainly add maintenance burden and unreliability to the system.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, JENNIFER DIETERLE can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776