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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections and objections are maintained or modified as follows:
Specification
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2, reads “first and bars”.
There are two claims numbered 23 (amendment 5/22/206). The second claim 23 has not been examined and should be cancelled.
Appropriate correction is required.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 25-28 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (CN 110280337)(with text citations to translation provided in IDS of 5/26/2026).
Yang teaches crusher screening unit for use between a crusher material feeder and a material crushing zone (fig. 1 showing crusher near 3 being fed by crusher screening unit 1), the unit comprising
(re: base claim 1) a first grid comprising a plurality of longitudinally elongate first bars that are laterally spaced and each longitudinally extend from a first end portion to a second end portion (fig. 2, 3 showing screening plate 13 comprising first 132 and second 131 bars laterally interspaced), and
a second grid comprising a plurality of longitudinally elongate second bars that are laterally interspaced with first bars and each longitudinally extend from a first end portion to a second end portion (Id.); and
a laterally-arranged driveshaft rotatably mounted with the first grid such that at least one eccentric portion of the driveshaft rotates in an eccentric motion about an axis of rotation of the driveshaft (fig. 3 showing eccentric portion 53 of driveshaft mounted with first grid; p. 4-5 teaching the driving motor 51 rotates eccentric portion 53 to cause “a relative movement between the vibrating plate 132 and the adjacent fixing plate 131” that improves screening efficiency),
wherein the at least one eccentric portion of the driveshaft engages the second grid is and drives directly driven in use the first end portions of the second bars in an eccentric motion relative to the axis of rotation of the driveshaft and relative to the first end portions of the first grid bars (Id.), and
wherein the eccentric motion of the first end portions of the second bars relative to the first end portions of the first bars comprises differing relative height arrangements of upper portions of the first and second bars at the first end portions and differing relative longitudinal arrangements of the first and second bars (Id. with fig. 3 showing differing relative height and longitudinal arrangements);
(re: claim 3) wherein the upper portions of the first bars and the upper portions of the second bars are T-shaped in cross-section (fig. 2, 3);
(re: claim 9) wherein the second grid further comprises a supporting framework extending beneath the first and second bars (fig. 2 showing base on surrounding frame);
(re: claim 10) wherein the second grid further comprises a transverse cross-strut beneath the first and second bars (fig. 3 near 131);
(re: claim 12) wherein the driveshaft is driven by a drive motor (fig. 2, 3 near 51; p. 4-5 teaching motor causing rotation movement via eccentric cam element 53);
(re: claim 13) wherein the drive motor is coupled with the first grid, and wherein the driveshaft is rotatably mounted with the first grid via the drive motor (Id.);
(re: claim 15) a separate driver for vibrating the unit in use (fig. 2 near 122);
(re: claim 28) wherein the first grid comprises a cross-plate coupled with the second end portions of the first bars that extends laterally across the lateral spaces between the first bars (fig. 3 near 52); and
(re: claim 31) wherein the drive motor is rotatably mounted with the first grid via a plate and at least one driver (fig. 2, 3 showing driver 51 and plate near 6).
Yang teaches a crusher/screening unit comprising
(re: base claims 16, 20) a screening unit (fig. 1 showing crusher downstream of screening unit 1), wherein the unit comprises
a first grid comprising a plurality of longitudinally elongate first bars that are laterally spaced and longitudinally each extend from a first end portion to a second end portion (fig. 2, 3 showing screening plate 13 comprising first 132 and second 131 bars laterally interspaced),;
a second grid comprising a plurality of longitudinally elongate second bars that are laterally interspaced with the first bars and each longitudinally extend from a first end portion to a second end portion (Id.); and
a laterally-arranged driveshaft rotatably mounted with the first grid such that at least one eccentric portion of the driveshaft rotates in an eccentric motion about an axis of rotation of the driveshaft (fig. 3 showing eccentric portion 53 of driveshaft mounted with first grid; p. 4-5 teaching the driving motor 51 rotates eccentric portion 53 to cause “a relative movement between the vibrating plate 132 and the adjacent fixing plate 131” that improves screening efficiency),
wherein the at least one eccentric portion of the driveshaft engages the second grid and drives the first end portions of the second bars in an eccentric motion relative to the axis of rotation of the driveshaft and relative to the first end portions of the first bars (Id.), and
wherein the eccentric motion of the first end portions of the second bars relative to the first end portions of the second bars comprises differing relative height arrangements of upper portions of the first and second bars at the first end portions and differing relative longitudinal arrangements of the first and second bars (Id. with fig. 3 showing differing relative height and longitudinal arrangements);
(re: claim 25) wherein the driveshaft is rotatably mounted with the first grid via a drive plate and at least one driver (fig. 2, 3 showing driver 51 and plate near 6);
(re: claim 26) a vibration unit that vibrates at least the first grid and the second gird (122);
(re: claim 27) wherein the driveshaft rotates relative to the first and second screening bars (fig. 3 showing shaft connected to eccentric element 53 rotate relative to said bars); and
(re: claim 31) wherein the drive motor is rotatably mounted with the first grid via a plate and at least one driver (fig. 2, 3 showing driver 51 and plate near 6).
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 11, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 110280337) in view of Bielagus (US 5,305,891) and Bockle et al. (“Bockle”)(US 2024/0024888).
Yang as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 11) wherein the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars longitudinally taper;
(re: claim 14) wherein the crusher material feeder is an integral feed hopper;
(re: claim 17) wherein the crusher is at least one of a jaw crusher or a roll crusher;
(re: claim 19) wherein the crusher is an impact crusher.
Further, under an alternate interpretation, the respective bars (re: claim 3) may not be regarded as T-shaped.
Re: claim 11:
Bielagus teaches that it is well-known in the screening arts to taper a longitudinal edge of a bar screen to prevent clogging of the bar screen gaps (fig. 4; col. 5, ln. 45-54).
Re: claims 14, 17, 19:
Bockle further teaches that it is well-known in the crushing and screening arts to use a wide variety of crushers when processing aggregate as well as to integrate a feed hopper to properly buffer/feed said aggregate (fig. 1-3 near 22, 24 and para. 78-79 teaching that hopper properly buffers and feeds aggregate for screening/crushing;para. 15 teaches a variety of crushers can be utilized to crush rock—including impact, roll, cone and jaw).
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 and 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., hopper or jaw crusher) 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 Yang for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bockle et al. (“Bockle”)(US 2024/0024888) in view of Yang (CN 110280337) and DHANESH et al. (“DHANESH”)(US 2021/0299674).
Bockle teaches an aggregate processing plant for screening aggregate material comprising
(re: certain elements of claim 21) a mobile chassis having a main frame (fig. 1 showing mobile plant with frame near 50);
a vibrating screening unit (18) able to provide at least one aggregate discharge stream therethrough (para. 77, 82);
wherein the feed for the vibrating screening unit includes a screening unit (16; para. 77-79 teaching pre-screening of aggregates to prepare aggregate for crushing according to respective specifications).
Bockle as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: certain elements of claim 21) wherein the vibrating screening unit is mounted via one or more absorbers on a screen-mounting frame, and
wherein the screening unit is as defined in claim 19.
Yang, however, as cited above already teaches that it is well-known to use a screening unit as defined in claim 20 in the aggregate screening context as the eccentric movement of the moveable longitudinal bars prevents clogging of the screen when feeding a downstream crusher element (supra with p. 4-5 expressly teaching that relative movement prevents clogging).
DHANESH further teaches that it is well-known in the screening and crushing arts to mount a vibrating screen deck via a mounting frame and absorbers for the common-sense benefit of shielding the mobile plant from vibrations during screening (fig. 2 and 5 showing screening deck near 56, 57 with surrounding structural frame and leaf springs; para. 51-53 teaching that vibrating screen 57 is mounted on sub frame 64).
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 and 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., screening unit with cleaning element and screen mounting frame with absorbers) 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 Bockle for the reasons set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the amended claim features are unpersuasive in view of the reformulated prior art rejections as set forth above.
Consequently, the claims stand rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 22-24, 29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus 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
------
August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights