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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The applicant’s priority to foreign application EP19213390.8 filed on December 4th, 2019 has been accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on April 24th, 2025, has been considered by the examiner. The applicant is advised that NPL 5 is missing a date and has not been considered
Claim Objection
Claims 20-2 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 line 3, “receiving at least a portion of the bulk material at an inlet” should be “receiving at least a portion of the bulk material at an inlet,” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The terms “at least a first sorting device” “a cleaning mechanism”, “a second sorting device” “imaging means” “suction means” and “discharging mechanism” are used throughout the claims and invoke 112f. “Sorting device” is interpreted as a sieve (P0014). “Cleaning mechanism” is interpreted as a brush (P0026). “Imaging means” is interpreted as a camera, CCD sensor, 3D scanner, or line scanner (P0029).”
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.
Claims 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 limitation “suction means” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “discarding mechanism” in claim 17 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 24 (L5) is rendered indefinite for disclosing “the animal feed preferably being pellets.” It is unclear whether this is a limitation or not. This claim will be interpreted as if the word “preferably” were removed.
Claim 25 (L7) is rendered indefinite for disclosing “the animal feed preferably being pellets.” It is unclear whether this is a limitation or not. This claim will be interpreted as if the word “preferably” were removed.
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) 1-7, 9-10, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Al-Shaibani et al. (US 10791869), hereafter Al-Shaibani.
With regards to claim 1, Al-Shaibani discloses a device for determining particle size distribution (Abstract, Col. 2, L46-48) in bulk grain material for animal feed, said device comprising: an inlet (rightmost down arrow in Fig. 1) for receiving at least a portion of the bulk material, a sorting mechanism (been refinement cute 120) for sorting the received bulk material, said sorting mechanism comprising: at least a first sorting device (filter system 120) for sorting said received bulk material into at least two sorted partitions wherein the sorting device are capable of sorting different particle sizes and said at least two sorted partitions have different particle size, a motor or actuator (100) for vibrating the first sorting device, and a weighing system comprising at least one sensor (load cells shown in Fig. 7), for weighing the at least two sorted partitions sorted by said sorting mechanism, and a data output for generating output data indicative of a weight of the at least two sorted partitions, so as to allow calculation of the particle size distribution in the bulk material received in the inlet (Col. 11, L19-26).
Al-Shaibani does not directly disclose the motor or actuator adapted to oscillate at between 1 and 20 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate vibration frequency based on the particle size being separated to ensure proper separation.
With regards to claim 2, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses at least a second sorting device wherein the second sorting device receives bulk material from the first sorting device (Col. 6, L65-Col. 7, L3).
With regards to claim 3, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses wherein the device is arranged inside a frame or housing comprising a top portion and a bottom portion (Fig. 7), the device further being horizontally arranged with the inlet at the top portion, the first sorting device positioned below the inlet for receiving bulk material from the inlet, (Fig. 1), the device further comprising the second sorting device positioned below the first sorting device (Fig. 4) for receiving bulk material from the first sorting device, wherein the particle size of the bulk material received in the second sorting device is smaller than the particle size of the a sorted partition, sorted by the first sorting device (Col. 7, L1-12),
With regards to claim 4, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses, wherein the sensor of the weighing system is positioned at a bottom portion of the device for determining particle distribution and wherein the bulk material to be sorted is weighed at the bottom portion of the device for determining particle distribution (Fig. 7).
With regards to claim 5, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses wherein the at least first sorting device and second sorting device two sorting devices comprise respective first and second sieves (filters; Col 7, L1-4), wherein the bulk material is translated from the first sieve to the second sieve through vibration of said first and second sieves (Col. 7, L60-Col. 8, L3), the holes in the first sieve being larger than the holes in the second sieve, so as to allow particles smaller than the particles kept in the first sieve to translate from the first sieve to the second sieve (Col. 7, L8-12).
With regards to claim 6, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses an individual container (chamber 140) in connection to with the at least first sorting device for receiving the sorted partitions from the at least first sorting device.
With regards to claim 7, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 6 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses wherein the at least first sorting device is angled downwards, relative to a horizontal plane, towards the container (Fig. 1) so as to translate any particles kept in the at least first sorting device towards said container through vibration.
With regards to claim 9, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses wherein the weighing system comprises a plurality of weighing sensors for weighing respective ones of the at least two partitions, or wherein the weighing system comprises one single weighing sensor for weighing all of the at least two partitions sequentially (Fig. 7 has multiple load cells).
With regards to claim 10, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not directly disclose wherein the motor or actuator is arranged to vibrate the sorting device or sorting devices at between 4 and 10 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate vibration frequency based on the particle size being separated to ensure proper separation.
With regards to claim 15, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements if claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses a cleaning mechanism for discarding the sorted partitions and cleaning the sorting mechanism (Col. 11, L8-10).
With regards to claim 18, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses a processing system comprising the device for particle distribution according to claim 1, a computer system (controller 150) for receiving data from said data output indicative of the weight of the at least two sorted partitions, so as to allow calculation of the particle size distribution in the bulk material received in the inlet.
With regards to claim 20, Al-Shaibani discloses a method of measuring particle size distribution in a bulk material, (Abstract; Fig. 8) said method comprising: receiving at least a portion of the bulk material at an inlet (S120), sorting the received bulk material with a sorting mechanism (S130), said sorting mechanism comprising: at least a first sorting device (Col 7, L1-4) for sorting said received bulk material into at least two sorted partitions, wherein the sorting device is capable of sorting different particle sizes and said at least two sorted partitions have different particle sizes (Fig. 1), and providing a weighing system comprising at least one sensor (load cells shown in Fig. 7) for weighing the at least two sorted partitions sorted by said sorting mechanism, providing data output means for generating output data indicative of a weight of the at least two sorted partitions (Col. 11, L19-26).
Al-Shaibani does not directly disclose the motor or actuator adapted to oscillate at between 1 and 20 Hz. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate vibration frequency based on the particle size being separated to ensure proper separation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Holton (US 20140166592).
With regards to claim 8, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 7 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose a chute positioned below the downwards angled at least first sorting device(s) and wherein said chute is angled downwards, at an angle substantially opposite to the at least first sorting device's angle, relative to a horizontal plane.
However, Holton discloses a chute (213A-C) positioned below the downwards angled at least first sorting device(s) and wherein said chute is angled downwards, at an angle substantially opposite to the at least first sorting device's angle, relative to a horizontal plane (P0023). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a chute as disclosed by Holton to the device disclosed by Al-Shaibani in order to enhance separation.
Claim(s) 11-12, 17 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claims 1 and 20, respectively above, and further in view of Ding et al. (CN 107138433), hereafter Ding.
With regards to claim 11-12, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose imaging means configured to detect anomalies in the bulk material, wherein a parameter for detection of anomalies within the bulk material is selected from one or more of size, shape, color or reflectance.
However, Ding discloses further imaging means (camera unit 15) configured to detect anomalies in the bulk material, wherein a parameter for detection of anomalies within the bulk material is selected from one or more of size, shape, color or reflectance (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add imaging means disclosed by Ding to the device disclosed by Al-Shaibani, in order to improve the quality of the animal feed.
With regards to claim 17, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose a discarding mechanism adapted to discard a portion of the bulk grain material upon detection of anomalies in the bulk grain material.
However, Ding discloses a discarding mechanism (air separator 17), adapted to discard a portion of the bulk grain material upon detection of anomalies in the bulk grain material. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add imaging means and remove anomalies in the manner disclosed by Ding in the method disclosed by Al-Shaibani, in order to improve the quality of bulk material.
With regards to claim 21-23, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 20 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose providing imaging means, detecting any anomalies within the bulk material before and/or during and/or after sorting of the bulk material, outputting a signal as a response to the detection of anomalies within said bulk material, discarding at least a portion of the bulk material as a response to the detection of anomalies within said bulk material.
However, Ding discloses providing imaging means (camera 15), detecting any anomalies within the bulk material before and/or during and/or after sorting of the bulk material (Abstract), outputting a signal as a response to the detection of anomalies within said bulk material (via controller 16), discarding at least a portion of the bulk material as a response to the detection of anomalies within said bulk material (via air separator 17). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add imaging means and remove anomalies in the manner disclosed by Ding in the method disclosed by Al-Shaibani, in order to improve the quality of the animal feed.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haag et al. (US 20210308721), hereafter Haag.
With regards to claim 13, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose suction means configured to remove aerosolized particles.
However, Haag discloses a screening device (Abstract), suction means (26) configured to remove aerosolized particles (P0064). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a suction means as disclosed by Hagg to the device disclosed Al-Shaibani in order to enhance separation.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schneider (US 11618033).
With regards to claim 14, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose a vibration sensor configured to detect vibrations generated by the bulk material; during sorting of said bulk material.
However, Schneider discloses a vibration sensor configured to detect vibrations generated by the bulk material; during sorting of said bulk material (Col. 17, L10-14). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a vibration sensor as disclosed by Schneider to the device disclosed by Al-Shaibani in order to be able to detect when the screen is clogged.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schwanitz (US 9617063)
With regards to claim 16 Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses an individual container in connection with the at least first sorting device for receiving the sorted partitions from the at least first sorting device (refined grind chamber 140). Al-Shaibani dies not disclose the individual container comprising a tilting mechanism adapted to tilt the container and discard the sorted partitions.
However, Schwanitz, discloses a bin for a sorter (Abstract) with a tilting mechanism adapted to tilt the container and discard the sorted partitions (Col. 6, L2-7).
Claim(s) 19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as applied to claims 18 and 20, respectively above, and further in view of Brion et al. (US 10743565), hereafter Brion.
With regards to claim 19, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani further discloses a processing system (Abstract) wherein the device for determining particle distribution is configured for a target particle size distribution target range of a milled bulk material (Col. 10, L33-41) with a plurality of processing stages, said processing system comprising a mill or grinder (grinding system 200) for milling or grinding a bulk material, said bulk material having a first particle size and the milled bulk material having at least a second particle size wherein the at least second particle size is smaller than the first particle size, (Col. 3, L4-16), a transporting device for transporting the milled bulk material (Not labeled but shown as a curved line in Fig. 2 below grinding system 200), to the device for determining particle size distribution in said milled bulk material according to claim 1 (Fig. 2). Al-Shaibani does not disclose and wherein the mill or grinder and the device for determining particle size distribution are only two of more stages in said processing system.
However, Brion discloses and wherein the mill or grinder and the device for determining particle size distribution are only two of more stages in said processing system (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the device as disclosed by Al-Shaibani in the system disclosed by Brion, in order to produce a desired product.
With regards to claim 24, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 20 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose a method for producing animal feed from grain, the method comprising, milling the grain to produce milled grain, producing an animal feed from the milled grain.
However, Brion discloses a method for producing animal feed from grain (Abstract), the method comprising, milling the grain to produce milled grain (via grinder 302), producing an animal feed from the milled grain (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the particle distribution as disclosed by Al-Shaibani while producing animal feed as disclosed by Brion, in order achieve a desired composition of the animal feed (Brion Col. 2, L14-22), the animal feed being pellets (Abstract)
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Shaibani as and further in view of Brion and Ding.
With regards to claim 25, Al-Shaibani discloses all the elements of claim 20 as outlined above. Al-Shaibani does not disclose a method for producing animal feed from grain, the method comprising, milling the grain to produce milled grain, producing an animal feed from the milled grain.
However, Brion discloses a method for producing animal feed from grain (Abstract), the method comprising, milling the grain to produce milled grain (via grinder 302), producing an animal feed from the milled grain (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the particle distribution as disclosed by Al-Shaibani while producing animal feed as disclosed by Brion, in order achieve a desired composition of the animal feed (Brion Col. 2, L14-22), the animal feed preferably being pellets (Abstract).
Al-Shaibani and Brion do not disclose providing imaging means, detecting any anomalies within the milled grain before and/or during and/or after sorting of the milled grain, and discarding at least a portion of the milled grain as a response to the detection of anomalies within said milled grain.
However, Ding discloses providing imaging means (camera 15), detecting any anomalies within the bulk material before and/or during and/or after sorting of the bulk material (Abstract), and discarding at least a portion of the bulk material as a response to the detection of anomalies within said bulk material (via air separator 17). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add imaging means and remove anomalies in the manner disclosed by Ding in the method disclosed by Al-Shaibani and Brion, in order to improve the quality of the animal feed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm 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, Michael McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653