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 .
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 3 and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the shaft and teeth define a knife” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 3 depends from claim 1 which already recites the shredder includes knives, thus it is unclear if “a knife” is referring to one of the previously recited knives or if this is introducing a new knife. For the purpose of examination, “a knife” will be interpreted as referring to one of the previously recited knives. The claim also recites “the distance between teeth is similar to the width of the knife” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for a distance to be “similar” to a width, i.e., equal to the width or within a range of the width. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the distance is at least equal to the width, i.e., the distance may be greater than the width but cannot be less.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “the aspect ratio of the distance between the teeth to the width of the knife is near 1” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for an aspect ratio to be “near” 1, i.e., equal to 1 or within a range of 1. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as there is an aspect ratio of the distance between the teeth to the width of the knife.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,241,170 B1 to St. Clair.
Regarding claim 1, St. Clair teaches a shredder for minimizing aggregation of whole batteries (Abstract; Figs. 1-7; the shredder is capable of minimizing aggregation of whole batteries), the shredder comprising the following:
a shaft 1 defining a longitudinal axis and a latitudinal axis (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 16-22); and
a plurality of teeth 17 disposed on knives 16 which fit on said shaft at an angle to the latitudinal axis selected from 0 degrees and 45 degrees (Figs. 1 and 5-7; Col. 4, Ln. 60 through Col. 5, Ln. 9; a plurality of knives 16 with teeth 17 are attached to the shaft, and the teeth 17 form an acute angle, i.e., under 45 degrees, relative to the latitudinal axis, as clearly shown in Fig. 5), wherein the teeth 17 have a first proximal end integrally molded to the shaft and a second free distal end (Figs. 1 and 5-7; Col. 4, Ln. 60 through Col. 5, Ln. 9; as best seen in Fig. 5, each tooth 17 includes a first end attached to the body of knife 16 and a second end that is free).
Regarding claim 2, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the free distal end defines a hook (Figs. 5 and 7; as shown in Figs. 5 and 7, the end of each tooth 17 defines a hook in that the distal end extends over a cavity that could hook an object).
Regarding claim 3, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the shaft 1 and teeth 17 define a knife 16 (Figs. 1 and 5-7; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this limitation is interpreted as the knife previously recited in claim 1) and the distance between teeth is similar to the width of the knife (Figs. 1 and 5-7; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this phrase is interpreted as the distance between teeth is at least the width of the knife, and Fig. 1 shows the distance between the teeth at least equal to the width of the knife as it is able to fit between adjacent knives on the opposite shaft).
Regarding claim 4, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 3 (Fig. 1), wherein the aspect ratio of the distance between the teeth to the width of the knife is near 1 (Figs. 5 and 7; Col. 5, Lns. 2-9 and 48-55; the cutting blades may include up to 20 teeth and have a diameter of 8 inches with a width of 1.25 inches, and the spacing between the tips on a blade with 20 teeth and diameter of 8 inches would be 1.25 inches, thus the ratio of the distance between the teeth to the width of the knife is 1 in such a configuration).
Regarding claim 5, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the shredder defines a single shaft system (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 17-27; this is a comprising claim, so this limitation is interpreted as the shredder includes at least one shaft).
Regarding claim 6, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the shredder defines a multiple shaft system (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 17-27; the shredder includes two shafts).
Regarding claim 7, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the distance between the teeth edges ranges from 1/8 inches to 12 inches (Figs. 5 and 7; Col. 5, Lns. 2-9 and 48-55; the cutting blades may 2 to 20 teeth and have a diameter of 8 to 12 inches, thus distance between the teeth edges would be between 1.25 inches and 18.8 inches, which substantially overlaps the claim range for which no criticality is discussed in the specification).
Regarding claim 8, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the teeth 17 define a pattern selected from the group consisting of running, chevron, staggered, and combinations thereof (Fig. 16 shows the teeth are arranged in a running pattern, i.e., neighboring teeth are configured to extend across the longitudinal direction at an angle).
Regarding claim 9, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein: the plurality of teeth 17 comprise a first tooth having a first tip and a second tooth having a second tip (Figs. 5 and 7);
a distance between the first tip and the second tip is equal to a width of the first tooth (Figs. 5 and 7; Col. 5, Lns. 2-9 and 48-55; the cutting blades may include up to 20 teeth and have a diameter of 8 inches with a width of 1.25 inches, and the spacing between the tips on a blade with 20 teeth and diameter of 8 inches would be 1.25 inches, thus the spacing between the teeth is equal to the width of the teeth in such a configuration).
Regarding claim 10, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the knives have tips spaced from each other a distance equal to a width of the teeth (Figs. 5 and 7; Col. 5, Lns. 2-9 and 48-55; the cutting blades may include up to 20 teeth and have a diameter of 8 inches with a width of 1.25 inches, and the spacing between the tips on a blade with 20 teeth and diameter of 8 inches would be 1.25 inches, thus the spacing between the teeth is equal to the width of the teeth in such a configuration).
Regarding claim 11, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the shaft is a first shaft 1, the shredder further comprising: a second shaft 4 disposed a distance from the first shaft 1 (Fig. 1; Col. 4, Lns. 16-27); wherein the plurality of teeth 17 is disposed on the knives 16 which fit on the second shaft 4 (Figs. 1 and 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 11 (Fig. 1), wherein the first shaft 1 and the second shaft 4 are configured to rotate at between 5 and 400 rpm (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 8-19; the drive shafts are configured to rotate within the housing, and the drive shafts are capable of rotating at 5-400 rpm depending on the motor attached to the shaft).
Regarding claim 13, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 11 (Fig. 1), wherein the first shaft 1 and the second shaft 4 are configured to rotate at between 10 to 40 rpm (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 8-19; the drive shafts are configured to rotate within the housing, and the drive shafts are capable of rotating at 5-40 rpm depending on the motor attached to the shaft).
Regarding claim 14, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the shaft 1 is configured to rotate at between 25 to 200 rpm (Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lns. 8-19; the drive shafts are configured to rotate within the housing, and the drive shafts are capable of rotating at 25-200 rpm depending on the motor attached to the shaft).
Regarding claim 15, St. Clair teaches the shredder of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein each knife 16 of the knives comprises a first surface parallel to a second surface (Figs. 1, 5 and 7 show the knives 16 each include flat first and second side surfaces, i.e., the side surfaces are parallel to each other).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,676,321 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 2, Lns. 15-29) teach a shredder including knives having teeth that are arranged at angles between 0 and 45 degrees relative to the axis. WO 2018/218358 A1 (Abstract; Figs. 1-2) teaches a system in which shredders including knives on a rotating shaft are used to shred batteries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights