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 Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be re-written as following:
An impact crusher comprising a rotor that has a plurality of rotor disks,
wherein each of the rotor disk having an outer circumference, and
each of the rotor disk having a plurality of edge recesses distributed along the outer circumference,
the plurality of edge recesses are designed to extend radially inward from the outer circumference of each the rotor disk,
the plurality of edge recesses being arranged in alignment with one another to hold a blow bar,
each of the edge recess comprising a first side wall, a second side wall and a bottom wall,
the first side wall of each of the edge recess having a retaining part,
a clamping wedge with a clamping wall being arranged on the second side wall of each of the edge recess, and
the clamping wedge being fixable to the second side wall in a clamping position in which the blow bar is clamped between the clamping wall and the retaining part,
wherein
the clamping wedge is mounted on the second side wall so as to be movable from the clamping position into a maintenance position, in which the clamping wall of the clamping wedge is arranged to release the blow bar.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “The impact crusher according to either claim 1 wherein the positioning device” should be changed to “The impact crusher according to either claim 2, wherein the positioning device”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the movement of clamping wedge” should be changed to “the movement of the clamping wedge”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “The impact crusher according to claim 2 wherein” should be changed to “The impact crusher according to claim 2, wherein”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “The impact crusher according to claim 2 wherein” should be changed to “The impact crusher according to claim 2, wherein”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “wherein each opening in the two side legs” should be changed to “wherein the opening”.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “The impact crusher according to claim 6 wherein the openings in the side legs are each” should be changed to “The impact crusher according to claim 6, wherein the opening”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “step of the opening” should be changed to “the step of the opening”.
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 1-12 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 1, in lines 2-3 the phrase “a plurality of edge recesses distributed along its outer circumference” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “its” refers to “each rotor disk”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 3 the phrase “which are designed to extend radially inward” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which elements “are designed to extend radially inward”.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “the plurality of edge are designed to extend radially inward”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 8 the phrase “each edge recess having a retaining part on its first side wall” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “its” refers to “each edge recess”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 12 the phrase “between itself and the retaining part” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “itself” refers to.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “itself” refers to “the clamping wall”.
Claims 2-12 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “to guide its movement relative to the second side wall” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “its” refers to “the clamping wedge”.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “The impact crusher according to either claim 1 wherein the positioning device is designed to” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “The impact crusher according to either claim 1 wherein the positioning device is designed to” as “The impact crusher according to claim 2 wherein the positioning device is designed to”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “during its movement” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “its” refers to.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “its” refers to “the clamping wedge”.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “The impact crusher according to claim 1 wherein the positioning device pivotally supports the clamping wedge” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by this phrase.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination, the Examiner interpreted “The impact crusher according to claim 1 wherein the positioning device pivotally supports the clamping wedge” as “The impact crusher according to claim 2 wherein the positioning device pivotally supports the clamping wedge”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “the two side legs each having an opening, the edge of which is formed with a step, and the openings in the two side legs being aligned with one another” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the edge of which is formed with a step”; and it is unclear if “the edge” is the same as or different from “a plurality of edge recesses” that recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends from.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “when it moves into the maintenance position” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which element “it” refers to.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the direction" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite because claim 12 is depended from claim 10, and claim 10 is depended from claim 6, and none of claims 10 and 6 recited “the predetermined width”.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stemper (US20030127550A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stemper discloses an impact crusher (abstract) comprising a rotor (fig.3: (18)) that has a plurality of rotor disks (fig.3: (34)),
each rotor disk having a plurality of edge recesses (fig.2: (36)) distributed along its outer circumference, which are designed to extend radially inward from the outer circumference of each rotor disk, the edge recesses of the plurality of rotor disks being arranged in alignment with one another (fig.3),
edge recesses arranged in alignment with one another being designed to hold a blow bar (fig.2: (22), (25) and (26)),
each edge recess comprising a first side wall, a second side wall and a bottom wall (fig.2: left side wall, right side wall and bottom wall of the element (36)), each edge recess having a retaining part (figs.2-4: (41)) on its first side wall,
a clamping wedge (figs.2 and 4: (54)) with a clamping wall (fig.4: (58)) being arranged on the second side wall of each edge recess, and
the clamping wedge being fixable to the second side wall in a clamping position in which the clamping wall of the clamping wedge is arranged to clamp the blow bar between itself and the retaining part (fig.4 and paragraph 0032),
wherein
the clamping wedge is mounted on the second side wall so as to be movable from the clamping position (fig.4) into a maintenance position (fig.5), in which the clamping wall of the clamping wedge is arranged to release the blow bar (fig.5).
Regarding claim 2, Stemper discloses wherein a positioning device (fig.4: (90)) fixes the clamping wedge in the clamping position to the second side wall, the positioning device being designed to hold the clamping wedge on the second side wall during a movement from the clamping position into the maintenance position and to guide its movement relative to the second side wall (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 3, Stemper discloses wherein the positioning device (fig.4: (90)) is designed to guide the movement of clamping wedge along the second side wall in the direction of the bottom wall during its movement from the clamping position into the maintenance position.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closet prior art is Stemper (US20030127550A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “wherein the positioning device pivotally supports the clamping wedge for when it moves in the direction of the second side wall from the clamping position into the maintenance position” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the closet prior art is Stemper (US20030127550A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitation of “wherein the clamping wedge is formed having two side legs which extend from the clamping wall and run in parallel with one another, the second side wall being arranged between the two side legs and the two side legs each having an opening , the edge of which is formed with a step , and the openings in the two side legs being aligned with one another.” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 6-12 are depended from claim 5.
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights