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 1-19 and 24 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the retainer is part of the material reducing system.
Claim 13 is indefinite because the claim purports to be to a “removable screen cradle assembly”, while the preamble of the claim contains lengthy structural recitation of a material processing machine. It is unclear if the claim is to be directed to the cradle assembly or the processing machine containing the cradle assembly
Claim 24 includes the limitation “until such time wherein the outward projection engages with the second guide and until the second end is seated against the stop while the outer projection remains engaged with the second guide.” This phrase is indefinite because it is unclear if both until conditions have to be satisfied.
All claims dependent upon rejected claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gardener (US2013/0240652).
Re Claim 1, Gardener discloses a material processing machine comprising:
an infeed system (feed conveyor 20);
a discharge system (discharge conveyor 22);
a material reducing system (horizontal grinder 10, Fig. 1) mounted between said infeed system and said discharge system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (mill box 14),
a rotor (see Fig. 1, illustrated below) having a shaft rotatably mounted to said housing and a drum defining an outer surface (grinding drum 18),
a plurality of processing tool assemblies (cutters 28) coupled to and extending outwardly from said outer surface of said drum (Fig. 1),
a stop (anvil 30) coupled to said housing (Fig. 19), and
a removable screen cradle assembly (screens 24, 26) partially surrounding said rotor (Fig. 1) with said screen cradle assembly comprising:
a cradle support structure (see Fig. 3, illustrated below) having first (trailing edge of screen 26) and second ends (leading edge of screen 24) with said second end seated against said stop when in an assembled state (“The leading edge 34 of the first screen 24 abuts the anvil 30 ; the anvil 30 prevents the two screens 24 , 26 from moving forward or moving in a clockwise direction. ” [0024]) and
at least one screen mounted to said cradle support structure (see Fig. 3, illustrated below); and
a retainer (shoulder 32) coupled to said housing (shoulder 31 is connected to mill box cover 16 which is connected to mill box 14) to engage said first end of said cradle support structure to secure said cradle support structure against said stop (Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
690
1058
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 3 of Gardner, illustrated
Re Claim 2, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said housing includes a cover (mill box cover 16) pivotable between an opened position (Fig. 17) and a closed position (Fig. 18) with said retainer mounted to said cover (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 3, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said retainer comprises at least one hooked portion engaging said first end of said cradle support structure to secure said cradle support structure against said stop (Figs. 17, 18 show that a hooked portion is created between shoulder 32 and block 70).
Re Claim 4, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said cradle support structure includes arcuate cradle arms (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) and wherein said retainer also includes a brace portion (block 70) adjacent said hooked portion with said brace portion engaging said cradle arms (block 70 engages the cradle arms via set screw 72 as shown in Fig. 1).
Re Claim 5, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further including a first guide (screen support 42) mounted to said housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) and second guide (screen support 40) mounted to said housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) spaced from said first guide (Fig. 1), and wherein said screen cradle assembly is exclusively held into position by said stop, said retainer, said first guide, and said second guide (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 6, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said retainer applies a first force against said first end of said cradle support structure (“the trailing edge 46 of the second screen 26 abuts a shoulder 32 provided on the mill box cover 16 ; the shoulder 32 prevents the two screens 24 , 26 from moving rearward or moving in a counter-clockwise direction” [0024]) and said stop applies a second reactive force against said second end of said cradle support structure (“the anvil 30 prevents the two screens 24 , 26 from moving forward or moving in a clockwise direction.” [0024]) to radially fix said screen cradle assembly within said housing.
Re Claim 8, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said stop is further defined as a pin mounted to said housing (anvil 30 is a pin).
Re Claim 9, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a first guide (screen support 42) secured to said housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) with said cradle support structure abutting said first guide (Fig. 1) and moving along said first guide when installed within or removed from said housing (Figs. 15-18).
Re Claim 10, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), further comprising a second guide secured to said housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) with said second guide spaced from said first guide (Fig. 1), and wherein said cradle support structure includes an outward projection (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) with said outward projection engaging said second guide when said cradle support structure is in said assembled state (Outward projection engages with the arcuate cradle arms and the arcuate cradle arms engages with the second guide, so the outward projection indirectly engages with the second guide).
Re Claim 12, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said at least one screen comprises a plurality of screens each mounted to said cradle support structure (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 13, Gardener discloses a removable screen cradle assembly (screens 24, 26) for use in a reducing chamber of a material processing machine, the material processing machine including an infeed system (feed conveyor 20), a discharge system (discharge conveyor 22) and a material reducing system (horizontal grinder 10, see Fig. 1) mounted between said infeed system and said discharge system (Fig. 1), with the material processing machine including a housing (mill box 14), a rotor having a shaft rotatably mounted to the housing and a drum defining an outer surface (drum 18), a plurality of processing tool assemblies (cutters 28) coupled to and extending outwardly from said outer surface of said drum (Fig. 1), a stop (anvil 30) coupled to said housing (Fig. 19), and a retainer (shoulder 32) mounted to said housing (shoulder 31 is connected to mill box cover 16 which is connected to mill box 14), said removable screen cradle assembly partially surrounding said rotor and comprising:
a cradle support structure (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) having first (trailing edge of screen 26) and second ends (leading edge of screen 24) with said second end configured to be seated against the stop when the material processing machine is in an assembled state (“The leading edge 34 of the first screen 24 abuts the anvil 30 ; the anvil 30 prevents the two screens 24 , 26 from moving forward or moving in a clockwise direction. ” [0024]), and
at least one screen (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) mounted to said cradle support structure.
Re Claim 15, Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein said cradle support structure includes an outward projection configured for engagement with a guide of the housing (see Fig. 3, illustrated above).
Re Claim 17 Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein said at least one screen comprises a plurality of screens each mounted to said cradle support structure (see Fig. 3, illustrated above).
Re Claim 18, Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein said cradle support structure comprises arcuate cradle arms further defining said first end and said second end (first end and second end are each formed by one support beam and the arcuate cradle arm on either side), and further comprising: a first end support beam connecting said first end of each of said arcuate cradle arms, and a second end support beam connecting said second end of each of said arcuate cradle arms, and at least one intermediate support beam connecting each of said arcuate cradle arms between said first and second ends (first support beam is the beam on leading edge of 24, second support beam is the beam on the trailing edge of 26 and all other support beams are intermediate beams).
Re Claim 19, Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 18 (see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein said at least one screen includes a first end screen, a second end screen and at least one intermediate screen (screen that touches the first support beam is the first end screen, screen that touches the second support beam is the second end screen, and all other screens are the intermediate screens).
Re Claim 20, Gardener discloses a method of installing at least one screen (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) into a material processing machine, with the material processing machine including a housing (mill box 14), a rotor having a shaft mounted to the housing and a drum defining an outer surface (grinding drum 18), a plurality of processing tool assemblies (cutters 28) coupled to and extending outwardly from said outer surface of said drum (“In particular, the grinding drum includes hammers or cutters 28 mounted to the outer perimeter of the drum that impact the material as the material is fed into the mill box” [0021]), a stop (anvil 30) coupled to said housing (Fig. 19), a retainer (shoulder 32) coupled to said housing (shoulder 31 is connected to mill box cover 16 which is connected to mill box 14), and a screen cradle assembly (screens 24, 26) having a cradle support structure (see Fig. 3, illustrated below), said method comprising the steps of:
mounting the at least one screen to the cradle support structure of the screen cradle assembly (see Fig. 3, illustrated below);
introducing the screen cradle assembly within the housing (“In the one method, the first screen 24 is inserted within the mill box in a counter-clockwise direction so as to be positioned adjacent to the anvil 30 and positioned upon a corresponding first one of the screen supports 40 . The second screen 26 is then inserted within the mill box in a counter-clockwise direction so as to abut the first screen 24 and be positioned upon a corresponding second one of the screen supports 42” [0034)];
rotating the screen cradle assembly about the rotor (Figs. 15-18) until a second end of the cradle support structure (leading edge 34 of the first screen 34) seats (“The leading edge 34 of the first screen 24 abuts the anvil 30 ” [0024]) against the stop (anvil 30) ; and
engaging the retainer to the first end of the cradle support structure to secure the cradle support structure against the stop (“The mill box cover 16 is closed and the adjusting set-screw member 68 is adjusted so that the trailing edge of the second screen 26 is positioned as needed relative to the grinding drum 18” [0034]).
Re Claim 21, Gardener discloses the method of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), wherein the material processing machine includes a cover (mill box cover 16) pivotable between an opened position (Fig. 17) and a closed position (Fig. 18) with the retainer mounted to the cover (Fig. 1), and wherein the step of engaging the retainer is further defined as pivoting the cover to a closed position (Figs. 17 and 18).
Re Claim 22, Gardener discloses the method of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), further including the step of pivoting the cover to the opened position prior to the step of introducing the screen cradle assembly (Fig. 15, one of ordinary skill in the art would under stand that Gardener teaches the limitation because the screen cradle assembly is blocked from being introduced while the cover is in the closed position).
Re Claim 23, Gardener discloses the method of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), further including a first guide (screen support 42) secured to the housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) and wherein the step of rotating the screen cradle assembly is further defined as abutting the cradle support structure to the first guide and moving the cradle support structure along the first guide when installing within or removing from the housing (Figs. 15-18 show the screen cradle assembly moves along the first guide during installation).
Re Claim 24, Gardener discloses the method of claim 20 (see rejection of claim 20 above), further including a second guide (screen support 40) mounted to the housing (“The slotted apertures 74 are used for securing the screen support 40 , 42 to the mill box.” [0030]) and wherein the cradle support structure includes an outward projection (see fig. 3, illustrated above), and wherein said step of rotating the screen cradle assembly is further defined as: rotating the screen cradle assembly around the rotor in a first rotational direction towards the stop until such time wherein the outward projection engages with the second guide and until the second end is seated against the stop while the outer projection remains engaged with the second guide (Fig. 1 shows the that the screen cradle assembly has stopped rotation and the second end is seated against the stop and the outward projection is engaged to the second guide via the arcuate cradle arms).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardener as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of McCall et al. (CA 3101015), hereinafter referred to as McCall.
Re Claim 7, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said cradle support structure comprises: arcuate cradle arms (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) connected together by support beams (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) with one of said cradle arms and said support beams further defining said first end and said second end (first end and second end are each formed by one support beam and the arcuate cradle arm on either side); and said at least one screen mounted to said cradle arms (Fig. 3).
Gardener fails to disclose including a notch formed in said second end with said notch seated against said stop
McCall teaches a notch (notch 132) formed in said second end (first end 112 of the screen unit 100) with said notch seated against said stop (stop 130; “As shown in Figs. 23 and 27, the positive stop 130 may be defined by a positive stop structure of the shredder box 22, where the first end 112 of the screen unit 100 includes a notch 132 that receives the positive stop structure when the screen unit 100 has been moved or lifted to the installed position” Pg. 19, Lines 10-14 and “In certain examples, a positive stop for retaining the screen in the installed position can be attached or integrated with the access door such that upon closing the access door, the positive stop engages an end of the screen.” Pg. 4, Lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gardener by including a notch in the second end as taught by McCall in order to have the second end of Gardener provide some engagement between the stop and the anvil, as shown in Fig. 39 of McCall, instead of merely having the end surface contact the stop.
Re Claim 14, Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein said cradle support structure comprises: arcuate cradle arms (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) connected together by support beams (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) with one of said arcuate cradle arms and said support beams further defining said first end and said second end (first end and second end are each formed by one support beam and the arcuate cradle arm on either side); and said at least one screen mounted to said cradle arms (fig. 3).
Gardener fails to disclose including a notch formed in said second end and configured for seating against the stop.
McCall teaches a notch (notch 132) formed in said second end (first end 112 of the screen unit 100) with said notch seated against said stop (stop 130; “As shown in Figs. 23 and 27, the positive stop 130 may be defined by a positive stop structure of the shredder box 22, where the first end 112 of the screen unit 100 includes a notch 132 that receives the positive stop structure when the screen unit 100 has been moved or lifted to the installed position” Pg. 19, Lines 10-14 and “In certain examples, a positive stop for retaining the screen in the installed position can be attached or integrated with the access door such that upon closing the access door, the positive stop engages an end of the screen.” Pg. 4, Lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gardener by including a notch in the second end as taught by McCall in order to have the second end of Gardener provide some engagement between the stop and the anvil, as shown in Fig. 39 of McCall, instead of merely having the end surface contact the stop.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Gardener as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kimbell et al. (CA3055050), hereinafter Kimbell.
Re Claim 11, Gardener discloses the material processing machine of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said cradle support structure includes spaced apart arcuate cradle arms (see Fig. 3, illustrated above), but fails to disclose that each one of said at least one screen includes a pair of spaced apart brackets with said brackets abutting corresponding cradle arms to facilitate mounting of said screen to said cradle support structure.
Kimbell discloses that each one of said at least one screen (86a) includes a pair (Figs. 13-14) of spaced apart brackets (brackets 137) with said brackets abutting corresponding cradle arms (housing 84) to facilitate mounting of said screen to said cradle support structure (“The fixed screen 86a shown in Figures 13 and 14 includes a pair of brackets 137 extending from the opposing widthwise sides 154 to secure the fixed screen 86a to the housing 84. It is to be understood that any suitable bracketry may be included on the fixed screen 86a to effectuate mounting the fixed screen 86a to the housing 84” [0067]).
Gardener discloses screens mounted onto arcuate cradle arms, but fails to disclose how those screens are mounted onto the arcuate cradle arms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screens of Gardener (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) by adding on either side a bracket as taught by Kimbell in order to mount the screens onto the arcuate cradle arms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Re Claim 16, Gardener discloses the removable screen cradle assembly of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above), wherein said cradle support structure includes arcuate cradle arms (see Fig. 3, illustrated above), but fails to disclose that each one of said at least one screen includes a pair of spaced apart brackets with said brackets abutting corresponding cradle arms to facilitate mounting of said screen to said cradle support structure.
Kimbell discloses that each one of said at least one screen (86a) includes a pair (Figs. 13-14) of spaced apart brackets (brackets 137) with said brackets abutting corresponding cradle arms (housing 84) to facilitate mounting of said screen to said cradle support structure (“The fixed screen 86a shown in Figures 13 and 14 includes a pair of brackets 137 extending from the opposing widthwise sides 154 to secure the fixed screen 86a to the housing 84. It is to be understood that any suitable bracketry may be included on the fixed screen 86a to effectuate mounting the fixed screen 86a to the housing 84” [0067]).
Gardener discloses screens mounted onto arcuate cradle arms, but fails to disclose how those screens are mounted onto the arcuate cradle arms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the screens of Gardener (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) by adding on either side a bracket as taught by Kimbell in order to mount the screens onto the arcuate cradle arms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Van der Gallen (EP2796202) discloses a material processing machine comprising :an infeed system (crane, “During use of comminutor 4, material for comminuting is introduced into opening 18, for instance using a crane.” [0078]); a material reducing system mounted between said infeed system and said discharge system, comprising: a housing (frame 14), a rotor (Figs. 8, 9, and 11) having a shaft (output shaft of drive 82) rotatably mounted to said housing (Fig. 4) and a drum (drum 20) defining an outer surface (Fig. 9), a plurality of processing tool assemblies (blade 22) coupled (supports 76) to and extending outwardly (Fig. 9) from said outer surface of said drum (“Drum 20 is provided in the shown embodiment with a number of supports 76 on which blades 22 are provided.” [0035]), a stop (pin 38/shaft 68, which appear to be the same part. See Figs. 5 and 7) coupled to said housing (Figs. 5 and 7), and a removable screen cradle assembly partially surrounding said rotor with said screen cradle assembly comprising: a cradle support structure (screen support part 32) having first (see Fig. 7, illustrated below) and second (support part 66) ends with said second end (support part 66) seated against said stop when in an assembled state (Fig. 3), and at least one screen (screen 34) mounted to said cradle support structure (“Also provided is a screen support part 32 on which a screen 34 can be placed” [0033]); and a retainer (part of door 24 that rests on top of the screen support part 32 when machine is in the assembled state, Fig. 2) coupled to said housing (54, 52, 46, 48, 50 or 62) to engage said first end of said cradle support structure to secure said cradle support structure against said stop (the retainer is directly above the screen support part 32 in the assembled state and restricts the motion of the part in the vertical direction).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
