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 (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.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 8 and 14-15 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 these claims, the language “about 1/16″ to about 3.0″” (claim 8) and “about 5,770 lbs. of output force” (claim 14) is indefinite as it is unclear what specific ranges are defined by “about” even in light of Applicant’s specification.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. 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, 6-10, 12 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rossi, Jr. (“Rossi”)(US 9,080,314).
Rossi teaches a dual deck vibratory screening bucket comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a. a main bucket frame having a lower deck, a rear wall having a back surface, two side walls, a lower deck front edge, and an underside (fig. 1 and 33 showing bucket frame 40 comprising a lower deck extending from front edge 61 to underside near 45, rear wall 43 and side walls 42a, 42b; col. 27, ln. 8-col. 29, ln. 5 and col. 26, ln. 5-18);
b. a universal connecting mount affixed to said back surface of said rear wall, said universal connecting mount being configured to be detachably secured to a piece of equipment having a skid steer (fig. 1, 3 and 33 showing mount 32 affixed to back of rear wall 43 and including flanges near 34a, 34b; col. 6, ln. 22-32 teaching that excavating bucket can be selectively attached to various mobile vehicles such as “excavators, front-end loaders, backhoes, skid steer loaders, and machinery similar to the foregoing”);
c. a vibrating frame having a rear wall and two side walls, said vibrating frame housed and affixed within said main bucket frame (fig. 34 showing multi-deck vibrating frame near 63, 263 configured for placement within bucket frame shown in fig. 33 and configured to hold various screening decks/panels; col. 7, ln. 58-col. 8, ln. 58 teaching that screening panel/elements are similar in single and double-deck structures);
d. a lower screen deck detachably secured to said vibrating frame (fig. 27, 28 and col. 8-9 teaching deck including screen panels 51 having screening media 65);
e. a first screen element removably connected to said lower screen deck (Id. teaching that screening elements may be removably connected to deck/panel via tensioning flanges and bolts);
f. a top screening deck detachably secured to said vibrating frame (fig. 33 showing upper and lower screening decks structures secured to vibrating frame with screening elements removably connected therein), and
g. a second screen element removably connected to said top screening deck (Id.), wherein said vibratory frame is powered to deliver vibration of said dual deck vibratory screening bucket (fig. 33-34 and col. 13, ln. 50-col. 14, ln. 50 and col. 27- 28 teaching screening with bucket and vibratory mechanism 60).
Rossi further teaches-
(re: claim 2) wherein said universal connecting mount can be detachably secured to pieces of equipment including skid loaders, excavators, and wheel loaders (col. 6, ln. 22-32 teaching that excavating bucket can be selectively attached to various mobile vehicles such as “excavators, front-end loaders, backhoes, skid steer loaders, and machinery similar to the foregoing”);
(re: claim 3) wherein said top screening deck is detachably secured to said vibrating frame by a quick-attach locking mechanism (col. 8 teaching that decks/panels are “detachably connected” to frame via fastening elements—such as bolts/nuts);
(re: claim 6) wherein said lower screening deck is detachably secured to said vibrating frame by a quick-attach locking mechanism (col. 8 teaching that decks/panels are “detachably connected” to frame via fastening elements—such as bolts/nuts);
(re: claim 7) wherein said vibrating frame comprises rear fixation elements and front fixation elements, and wherein said lower screening deck is attached to said vibrating frame by engagement with said rear fixation elements and said front fixation elements (fig. 27 and 33 showing fixation elements at front and rear edges);
(re: claim 8) wherein said first screen element and said second screen element each can be customized to screen materials from
(re: claim 9) wherein each of said first screen element and said second screen element are composed of materials selected from the group consisting of steel, rubber, and poly materials (Id. teaching that screening media can be combinations of rubber, urethane and polymer elements);
(re: claim 10) wherein screen elements composed of rubber and poly materials are selected for screening and sorting wet, sticky, or corrosive materials (Id.), and
wherein screen elements composed of steel materials are selected for screening and sorting abrasive materials (Id., wherein said media is regarded as capable of screening wet, sticky or abrasive elements);
(re: claim 12) a plurality of custom-sized teeth elements, each of said custom-sized teeth elements being removably secured to said lower deck front edge (fig. 33 near 61);
(re: claim 20) wherein when said universal connecting mount is detachably secured to a piece of equipment and manipulated to dig and scoop material into said screen bucket, vibrating motion delivered from said vibrating frame enables material within said dual deck vibratory screening bucket to be screened and sorted into three particulate sizes, the largest particulate size being retained on said second screen element, the mid-size particulate size being retained on said first screen element and the smallest particulate size being sorted and dispersed from said first screen element and through said lower deck (fig. 1, 33 showing that screen bucket is capable of functioning as claimed; see also fig. 17 and 18);
(re: claim 21) wherein when said universal connecting mount is detachably secured to a piece of equipment and manipulated to dig and scoop material into said screening bucket, vibrating motion delivered from said vibrating frame enables material within said screening bucket to be screened and sorted into three particle sizes, the larger particles being retained on said second screen element, the mid-size particles being retained on said first screen element and the smallest particles being sorted and dispersed from said first screen element and through said lower deck (fig. 1, 33 showing that screen bucket is capable of functioning as claimed; see also fig. 17 and 18);
(re: claim 22) configured to screen and sort material retained within said screening bucket into three particle sizes (fig. 1, 33 showing that screen bucket is capable of functioning as claimed; see also fig. 17 and 18).
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossi, Jr. (“Rossi”)(US 9,080,314) in view of what is well known in the art.
Rossi as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 18) wherein said universal connecting mount is welded to said back side of said main bucket frame;
(re: claim 19) wherein said main bucket frame is manufactured with high-strength steel to withstand the rigors of excavation and material handling.
These features, however, are well-known in the mechanical arts and Examiner takes Official Notice of such. 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 as these modifications are well-known. 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 Rossi for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11, 13 and 16-17 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.
Claims 14 and 15 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 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
---
December 22, 2025