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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” on FIG. 4. has been used to designate both a contour line and an extended pin. 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. 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.
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 limitation of “wherein the grinding cup further comprises the grinding cup base, which is configured to be connected in a form-fitting manner to the mating relief” in claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The grinding cup base and mating relief are both part of the grinding cup.
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.
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 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
In re claim 1: the claim recites “A laboratory mill” in the preamble of the claim but the body of the claim does not recite any structure capable of performing a milling function. Therefore, the intended scope of “laboratory mill” is unclear. To overcome the clarity issues, the examiner suggests amending claim 1 as follows:
--A laboratory mill, comprising:
at least one grinding cup for receiving material to be ground;
at least one ball for grinding the material within the at least one grinding cup; and
at least one grinding cup holder for the at least one grinding cup, wherein the at least one grinding cup holder comprises at least one anti-rotation means configured to hold the grinding cup (2) in a defined, predetermined position relative to the grinding cup holder and/or as a positioning aid, wherein the grinding cup holder comprises, on an axial surface (4) which faces a grinding cup base during a grinding operation, wherein the anti-rotation means comprises at least one surface relief, wherein the at least one surface relief is configured to be connected in a form-fitting manner to a mating relief which is complementary to the at least one surface relief on an axial surface (10) of the grinding cup base.—
Examiner is interpreting the grinding cup as not being positively claimed.
Claims 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.
In re claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the grinding cup holder comprises…wherein the anti-rotation means comprises at least on surface relief.” It is unclear what the grinding cup holder comprises. Also, it is unclear whether the grinding cup is being positively claimed or not.
In re claims 2-4, 8, and 10, Applicant appears to be attempting to claim “the surface relief”, on the grinding cup or grinding cup holder; however, since the claims are dependent on claim 1, the surface relief is only claimed as being positioned on the grinding cup base.
In re claim 2, it is unclear which grinding cup is being referenced when applicant claims “the grinding cup” since one is claimed in claim 1 and another one is claimed in claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the surface relief" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only a surface relief for the grinding cup holder is claimed in claim 1.
In re claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “the surface relief is formed by a recess or elevation…is closed.”
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 1-5, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lorenz et al. DE 19712905 A1. DE 19712905 A1 is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Lorenz patent.
Regarding claim 1, Lorenz discloses a laboratory mill, comprising at least one grinding cup holder (Lorenz – 32; FIG. 1A) for at least one grinding cup (Lorenz – 6; FIG. 1), wherein the at least one grinding cup holder (Lorenz - 32) comprises at least one anti-rotation means (See Lorenz FIG. 1A below) configured to hold the grinding cup (Lorenz - 6) in a defined, predetermined position relative to the grinding cup holder (Lorenz - 32) and/or as a positioning aid, wherein the grinding cup holder (Lorenz - 32) comprises, on an axial surface which faces a grinding cup base during grinding operation, wherein the anti-rotation means comprises at least one surface relief (See Lorenz FIG. 1A below), wherein the at least one surface relief is configured to be connected in a form-fitting manner to a mating relief which is complementary to the at least one surface relief on an axial surface of the grinding cup base (See Lorenz FIG. 1A below). It is to be noted that the grinding cup is not positively claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
629
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lorenz FIG. 1A
Regarding claim 2, Lorenz disclose the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the grinding cup (Lorenz – 6) comprises a surface relief on an axial surface, which faces the grinding cup holder (Lorenz – 32) of the laboratory mill during grinding operation, wherein the grinding cup (Lorenz – 6) further comprises the grinding cup base (See Lorenz FIG. 1B below), which is configured to be connected in a form- fitting manner to the mating relief which is complementary to the at least one surface relief on the axial surface of the grinding cup holder (Lorenz – 32)(See Lorenz FIG. 1B below). It is to be noted that the grinding cup is not positively claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
527
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lorenz FIG. 1B
Regarding claim 3, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the surface relief is formed by at least one surface region which is formed so as to be recessed or projecting in an axial direction with respect to an adjoining surface region of the axial surface, wherein, when the grinding cup (Lorenz – 6) is placed on or into a base of the grinding cup holder (Lorenz – 32), at least one recessed or projecting surface region on an axial surface of the grinding cup base engages with at least one projecting or recessed surface region on the axial surface of the grinding cup holder (Lorenz – 32)(See Lorenz FIGS. 1A and 1B above). It is to be noted that the grinding cup is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the at least one surface relief merges in one piece into an adjoining surface region of the axial surface and/or in that wherein the surface relief comprises a planar relief surface (See Lorenz FIG. 1A above).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the surface relief is formed by a recess or elevation which extends continuously over an entire circumference of the grinding cup (Lorenz – 6)(See Lorenz FIG. 1B above). It is to be noted that the grinding cup is not positively claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection 1 above), wherein the surface relief is formed on a disk-shaped ex-changeable part which is detachably connected to the at least one grinding cup (Lorenz – 6)(Lorenz Para [0015]: The grinding cup 6 … pressed against the disc-shaped base 30 of the grinding cup receiving device 3).
Regarding claim 12, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the laboratory mill comprises a centrifugal ball mill (Lorenz Para [0014]: Arrow 24 indicates the centrifugal force acting on the balls 20 as a result of rotation of the support device 2 about the axis 4.).
Regarding claim 13, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the laboratory mill comprises a planetary ball mill (Lorenz Para [0004]: The invention is based on the objective of creating a planetary ball mill).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. KR 20170020623 A. KR 20170020623 A is a published patent application henceforth to be known as the Kin patent.
Regarding claim 6, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 5 rejection above), wherein the grinding cup is comprised of a surface relief formed by an elevation which extends continuously over an entire circumference of the grinding cup (See Lorenz FIG. 1B above), however, Lorenz fails to disclose in a plan view of the at least one surface relief, the surface relief comprises a contour profile including at least one outer edge of the surface relief which deviates from an exact circular shape and/or from an exact annular shape, wherein the outer edge comprises at least one change in a curvature behavior in sections in a circumferential direction, in and wherein the outer edge forms an undercut for a form fit which acts in the circumferential direction with the mating relief.
Kim teaches in a plan view of the at least one surface relief (Kim – 21; FIG. 5), the surface relief comprises a contour profile including at least one outer edge of the surface relief which deviates from an exact circular shape (Kim Para [0043]: the second anti-rotation projection (21) is formed in a sawtooth shape), wherein the outer edge comprises at least one change in a curvature behavior in sections in a circumferential direction (See Kim FIG. 5), in and wherein the outer edge forms an undercut for a form fit which acts in the circumferential direction with the mating relief (Kim Para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface relief formed by an elevation extending from the grinding cup, disclosed by Lorenz, to include a contour profile at least one outer edge of the surface relief which deviates from an exact circular shape, wherein the outer edge forms an undercut for a form fit which acts in the circumferential direction with the mating relief, as taught by Kim, so as to provide an anti-rotation means (Kim Para [0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 5 rejection above), wherein the grinding cup is comprised of a surface relief formed by an elevation which extends continuously over an entire circumference of the grinding cup (See Lorenz FIG. 1B above), however, Lorenz fails to disclose wherein, in a plan view of the relief at least one surface relief, the surface relief comprises a wave-shaped contour profile of at least one outer edge of the surface relief in a circumferential direction, at least in sections, and/or wherein the surface relief forms an inner or outer multi-tooth profile.
Kim teaches in a plan view of the relief at least one surface relief (Kim – 21), the surface relief comprises a contour profile of at least one outer edge of the surface relief in a circumferential direction, at least in sections (See Kim FIG. 5), and/or wherein the surface relief forms an outer multi-tooth profile (Kim Para [0044]: the second anti-rotation projection (21) is formed in a sawtooth shape). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface relief extending from the grinding cup, disclosed by Lorenz, to include a contour profile at least one outer edge of the surface relief in a circumferential direction, at least in sections, wherein the surface relief forms an outer multi-tooth profile, as taught by Kim, the multi-tooth profile provides a means to mate the surface relief to another surface and thus form a gear shape to prevent the grinding cup from spinning freely (See Kim Para [0044]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enderle et al. US 2016/0107164 A1. US 2016/0107164 A1 is a published patent application henceforth to be referred to as the Enderle patent.
Regarding claim 8, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1 rejection above), However, Lorenz fails to disclose wherein at least one centering relief is formed in a base of the grinding cup holder and/or in the grinding cup base, wherein, when a form-fitting connection between the surface relief and the mating relief is formed, the centering relief can be connected in a form-fitting manner to a complementary centering relief on the grinding cup base or on the grinding cup holder in order to center the grinding cup relative to the holding device at least one grinding cup holder.
Enderle teaches a centering relief (Para [0055]) formed in a base wherein, when a form-fitting connection between the surface relief and the mating relief is formed, the centering relief can be connected in a form-fitting manner to a complementary centering relief in order to center a grinding cup relative to the holding device at least one grinding cup holder. It is to be noted that the grinding cup is not positively claimed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base of the grinding cup holder, disclosed by Lorenz, to include a centering relief formed in a base, as taught by Enderle, in order to properly align the parts (Para [0013]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Enderle et al. US 2016/0107164 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Lorenz discloses the laboratory mill (See claim 1rejection above), However, Lorenz fails to disclose wherein at least one bore which extends in an axial direction for receiving an anti-rotation pin as further anti-rotation means is provided in and/or on a surface of the grinding cup holder and/or on the surface of the grinding cup base, and wherein the bore is arranged in a surface region of the at least one surface relief.
Enderle teaches at least one bore (Enderle – 39; FIG. 10) which extends in an axial direction for receiving an anti-rotation pin (Enderle – 39a, 39b) as further anti- rotation means is provided in and/or on a lid surface (Enderle – 30) and/or on the surface of a container (Enderle – 20; FIG. 3); and wherein the bore (Enderle – 39) is arranged in a surface region of the at least one surface relief (Enderle – 22, FIG. 8)(See Enderle Para [0055]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding cup holder and grind cup base, disclosed by Lorenz, to include a bore which extends in an axial direction for receiving an anti-rotation pin, as taught by Enderle, to provide a centering means (See Enderle Para [0013], Lines 2-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLINGTON N IBEKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-2474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 4:00pm.
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.
D.N.I.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
