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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the upper portions of the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars are wholly or substantial Z or S shaped in a longitudinal direction”( claim 4); “jaw crusher and roll crusher” (claim 17) and “a vibrating screening unit mounted via one or more absorbers on a screen-mounting frame, and able to provide at least one aggregate discharge stream therethrough, wherein the feed for the vibrating screening unit includes a screening unit as defined in claim 19” (claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Applicant references U.S. Pat. No. 669,859B2 in the specification relating to a mobile aggregate processing plant (Spec., para. 66), but no such reference can be found. Examiner requests clarification.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should read “substantial
Claim 7 should read “or transverse plate” (see para. 35 of Specification).
Independent claims should being with “A” or ”An” and the claims depending therefrom should begin with “The”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed subject matter appears in conflict with the specification, thus rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. Here, claim 4 describes “the upper portions of the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars are wholly or substantial Z or S shaped in a longitudinal direction”. However, the drawings only appear to show a multi-tier structure and it is unclear how the structure shown below can be regarded a “Z” or “S” shaped
PNG
media_image1.png
826
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner regards this scope of this claim indeterminate and thus unexaminable.
Regarding claim 21, the scope of the claim also appears in conflict with the specification and thus indefinite. Here, Applicant claims “a vibrating screening unit mounted via one or more absorbers on a screen-mounting frame” and that “the feed for the vibrating screening unit includes a screening unit as defined in claim 19”. In contrast, although Applicant’s specification describes that a mobile plant may contain a vibrating screening unit, figure 1 does not include this claimed feature and, moreover, it is unclear how this feature would be integrated into the system shown in figure 1.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention and is consistent with the specification. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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, 5-9, 12-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Akira et al. (“Akira”)(JPH0975850)(with text citations to translation provided in IDS of 9/09/2025).
Akira teaches crusher screening unit for use between a crusher material feeder and a material crushing zone (fig. 1 and para. 1, 13-15, 24 teaching a screening unit for screening crushed stone/aggregate being delivered to a downstream crusher, wherein reciprocating plate with bars is used to clean screening unit), the unit comprising
(re: base claim 1) a first grid of elongate fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3, 5 and 9 showing fixed bars near 230, 231; para. 17-18 teaching sieve 230 comprising a number of sieve bars 231 placed into a frame body that is fixed to lower end of plate 220), and
a second grid of elongate moveable longitudinal bars interspaced with the fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3-6 showing moveable bars near 10 interspaced within fixed bars; para. 19-25, 29-30 teaching that bars are integrated onto a connecting tube 12 that functions to swing and insert each removal bar between each flow bar 231 to prevent clogging of the screening unit).
Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: certain elements of claim 1) wherein the second grid is directly driven in use in an eccentric motion relative to the first grid (fig. 1, 9 and para. 25-30 teaching eccentric shaft 222 for oscillating feeder loading plate which is connected to second grid via a driving link 40—thus, second grid is capable of being driven by an eccentric, i.e., off-center, movement when in use).
Akira further teaches
(re: claim 2) wherein the upper portions of the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars are wholly or substantial(Cf. fig. 5, 6 and 9 showing substantially rectangular or T-shaped cross-sections);
(re: claim 3) wherein the upper portions of the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars are T-shaped in cross-section (Id.);
(re: claim 5) wherein the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars form a multiple-tiered screening surface (fig. 1 showing dual tiers);
(re: claim 6) wherein the elongate moveable longitudinal bars are securely attached to the first grid via a flexible joint or transverse plate (fig. 5 and 6 showing connection via joint near pivoting shaft 20 and fig. 7 showing transverse bar near 12; para. 21-22);
(re: claim 7) wherein the flexible joint is located below the fixed and moveable longitudinal bars (Id.);
(re: claim 8) wherein the transverse plate is fixed to a cross-plate supporting the fixed longitudinal bars, and fixed to a cross-plate supporting the moveable longitudinal bars (fig. 2, 3 showing that transverse plate 12 is indirectly fixed to frame with cross-plate surrounding fixed bars and to end-cross plate connecting moving bars to base);
(re: claim 9) wherein the moveable grid further comprises a supporting framework extending beneath the fixed and moveable longitudinal bars (fig. 9 showing frame for fixed grid and fig 5, 6 showing supporting tube and frame beneath);
(re: claim 12) wherein the second grid is driven by a drive motor (fig. 1, 5 showing drive motor with eccentric shaft 222 connected to second grid via drive link 40; para. 15);
(re: claim 13) wherein the second grid is driven by an eccentric shaft of the drive motor (Id.);
(re: claim 14) wherein the crusher material feeder is an integral feed hopper (fig. 1 near 210);
(re: claim 15) a separate driver for vibrating the unit in use (fig. 1 near 222).
Akira teaches a crusher comprising
(re: base claim 16) a crusher screening unit (para. 1, 13-15, 24 teaching a screening unit for screening crushed stone/aggregate being delivered to a downstream crusher), wherein the unit comprises
a first grid of elongate fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3, 5 and 9 showing fixed bars near 230, 231; para. 17-18 teaching sieve 230 comprising a number of sieve bars 231), and
a second grid of elongate moveable longitudinal bars interspaced with the fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3-6 showing moveable bars near 10 interspaced within fixed bars).
Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: certain elements of claim 16) wherein the second grid is directly driven in use in an eccentric motion relative to the first grid (fig. 1, 9 and para. 25-30 teaching eccentric shaft 222 for oscillating feeder loading plate which is connected to second grid via a driving link 40—thus, second grid is capable of being driven by an eccentric, i.e., off-center, movement when in use).
Akira teaches a screening unit for screening aggregate material, the unit comprising
(re: base claim 20) a first grid of elongate fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3, 5 and 9 showing fixed bars near 230, 231; para. 17-18 teaching sieve 230 comprising a number of sieve bars 231), and
a second grid of elongate moveable longitudinal bars interspaced with the fixed longitudinal bars (fig. 3-6 showing moveable bars near 10 interspaced within fixed bars).
Further, Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: certain elements of claim 20) wherein the second grid is directly driven in use in an eccentric motion relative to the first grid (fig. 1, 9 and para. 25-30 teaching eccentric shaft 222 for oscillating feeder loading plate which is connected to second grid via a driving link 40—thus, second grid is capable of being driven by an eccentric, i.e., off-center, movement when in use).
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 3, 10, 11, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akira et al. (“Akira”)(JPH0975850) in view of Couture (US 3,106,523); Bielagus (US 5,305,891); Bockle et al. (“Bockle”)(US 2024/0024888).
Akira as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 3) wherein the upper portions of the fixed longitudinal bars and the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars are T-shaped in cross-section;
(re: claim 10) wherein the moveable grid further comprises a transverse cross-strut beneath the fixed and moveable longitudinal bars;
(re: claim 11) wherein the upper portions of the moveable longitudinal bars longitudinally taper;
(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: claims 3 and 10:
Couture teaches that it is well-known in the screening arts to provide a T-shaped cross-section when screening aggregate (fig. 3 near 3) and that multiple cross-struts may be placed beneath oscillating bars to provide the common-sense benefit of structural support (Cf. fig. 1 and 3 showing plurality of struts providing structural support during aggregate screening).
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 17, 19:
Bockle teaches that it is well-known in the crushing and screening arts to use a wide variety of crushers when processing aggregate (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., supporting struts; tapered bars 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 Akira 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 Akira et al. (“Akira”)(JPH0975850) 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.
Akira, however, as cited above already teaches that it is well-known to use a screening unit as defined in claim 19 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 (para. 1, 2, 4 and 10-11 teaching that screening unit prevents clogging and ensure steady stream of aggregate to downstream crusher unit; see also fig. 3-6 and 9 showing fixed bars near 230, 231 and moveable bars near 10 interspaced within fixed bars and para. 25-30 teaching eccentric shaft 222 for providing eccentric movement to moveable bars to prevent clogging of sieve).
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.
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
---
January 21, 2026