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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a knife plate rotation prevention mechanism to prevent rotation of the knife plate in claim 10.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification provides that a knife plate rotation mechanism comprises a peripheral fixing receiving opening on the knife plate configured to receive an outlet sideplate fixing, and optionally a series of peripheral notches.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 14 is 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. It is unclear if the sideplates recited in claim 14 are the “at least one removable outlet sideplate of claim 1 or something different.
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 1-4, 10-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinn US 2020/0222909 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Quinn discloses a slurry macerator (Quinn – 1; FIG. 1) comprising a housing (Quinn – 2; FIG. 8) having first and second sidewalls (Quinn – 11,12: FIG. 8) and at least one removable outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16,17; FIG. 8) at the sidewalls (See Quinn FIG. 7) for covering a housing outlet (Quinn – 14; FIG. 8); a slurry chamber (Quinn – 3; FIG. 8) in the housing (Quinn – 2) for receiving slurry from a slurry inlet (Quinn – 6; FIG. 1) on the housing; (Quinn – 2) and at least one knife plate (Quinn – 24; FIG. 10) and at least one cutting blade (Quinn – 9; FIG. 8) co-operable with the knife plate (Quinn – 24) for macerating slurry (Quinn Para [0106]: Maceration efficiency and in particular cutting and chopping of solids and debris such as timber and waste plastics is also improved by the V-shaped teeth 9 in combination with powerful springs 38 for urging the cutting blades 35 against the knife plates 24), wherein the knife plate (Quinn -24) is received in a knife plate mounting defined on the housing (See Quinn FIG. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Quinn FIG. 8
Regarding claim 2, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the knife plate mounting (See Quinn FIG. 8 above) is configured to support the knife plate (Quinn – 24) on the housing (Quinn – 2).
Regarding claim 3, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the knife plate mounting (See Quinn FIG. 8 above) is formed on at least one of the first sidewall (Quinn – 11) and the second sidewall (Quinn – 12) of the housing (Quinn – 2)(See Quinn FIG. 8 above).
Regarding claim 4, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the knife plate mounting (See Quinn FIG. 8 above) is machined into (product-by-process limitation) the at least one of the first sidewall (Quinn – 11) and the second sidewall (Quinn – 12)(See Quinn FIG. 8 above).
Regarding claim 10, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), further comprising a knife plate rotation prevention mechanism (See Quinn FIG. 5A below) to prevent rotation of the knife plate (Quinn Para [0092]: A stationary circular knife plate 24… The knife plates 24 are secured to the internal surface 23 of each side plate 16,17 by screw fixings 26.).
Regarding claim 11, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 10 rejection above), wherein the knife plate rotation prevention mechanism (See Quinn FIG. 5A below) comprises a peripheral fixing receiving opening (See Quinn FIG. 5A below) on the knife plate (Quinn – 24) configured to receive an outlet sideplate fixing (Quinn – 26; FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 11 rejection above), wherein the peripheral fixing receiving opening (See Quinn FIG. 5 below) comprises a notch (See Quinn FIG. 5 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
651
743
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Quinn FIG. 5A
Regarding claim 13, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 12 rejection above), wherein the knife plate rotation prevention mechanism (See Quinn FIG. 5A below) comprises a series of peripheral notches (See Quinn FIG. 5B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
303
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Quinn FIG. 5B
Regarding claim 14, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 above), further comprising a first outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16) and a second oppositely disposed outlet sideplate (Quinn – 17)(See Quinn FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 15, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), further comprising a plurality of cutting blades (Quinn – 9) mounted on a cutting plunger (Quinn – 4; FIG. 8)(Quinn Para [0087]: The rotatable cutting plunger 4 is provided with V-shaped cutting teeth 9).
Regarding claim 16, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 15 rejection above), wherein the cutting plunger (Quinn – 4) comprises an impeller rotatably mounted in the slurry chamber (Quinn – 3)(Quinn Para [0021]: the cutting plunger comprises an impeller rotatably mounted in the slurry chamber).
Regarding claim 17, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the knife plate (Quinn – 24) is a stationary knife plate (Quinn Para [0092]: A stationary circular knife plate 24).
Regarding claim 18, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), wherein the knife plate (Quinn – 24) comprises slurry openings (Quinn – 25; FIG. 10) to allow egress of slurry from the slurry chamber to outlet pipe openings (Quinn – 19; FIG. 9a) in the outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16, 17)(Quinn Para [0092]: Each knife plate 24 is provided with a series of knife plate slurry openings 25 corresponding in number and layout with the outlet pipe openings 19 on the sideplates 16,17 though which macerated slurry can egress from the slurry chamber 3 to the outlet pipe openings 19 during rotation of the cutting plunger 4.).
Regarding claim 19; Quinn discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 1 rejection above), further comprising a motor (Quinn – 5; FIG. 8) mounted on an outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16)(Quinn Para [0090]: the drive side sideplate 16 is further provided with a centrally located motor mounting cavity 21 in which the hydraulically powered motor 5 is mounted).
Regarding claim 21, Quinn discloses a slurry applicator comprising a slurry macerator (Quinn Para [0046]: The invention also extends to a slurry applicator comprising a slurry macerator) including a housing (Quinn - 2) having a first and second sidewalls (Quinn – 11,12) and at least one removable outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16,17) at the sidewalls (Quinn – 11,12) for covering a housing outlet (Quinn – 14; FIG. 8); a slurry chamber (Quinn – 3) in the housing (Quinn – 2) for receiving slurry from a slurry inlet (Quinn – 27; FIG. 5) on the housing (Quinn – 2) and at least one knife plate (Quinn – 24) and at least one cutting blade (Quinn – 9) co-operable with the knife plate (Quinn – 24) for macerating slurry (Quinn Para [0106]: Maceration efficiency and in particular cutting and chopping of solids and debris such as timber and waste plastics is also improved by the V-shaped teeth 9 in combination with powerful springs 38 for urging the cutting blades 35 against the knife plates 24) , wherein the knife plate (Quinn -24) is received in a knife plate mounting defined on the housing (See Quinn FIG. 8 above).
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.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinn in view of Zoske US 2022/0295692 A1. US 2022/0295692 is a published patent application henceforth to be known as the Zoske patent.
Regarding claim 5, Quinn discloses the slurry macerator comprising a knife plate mounting (See claim 3 rejection above), however Quinn fails to disclose, wherein the knife plate mounting comprises a recess for receiving the knife plate at a rim of the housing outlet.
Zoske teaches a recess (Zoske – 110) at a rim of component outlet (See Zoske Para [0041]: an end 250 of the manifold cover 200 may be inserted into a receiving space 110 of the manifold bowel 100). 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 housing, disclosed by Quinn, to include a recess as the knife plate mounting, as taught by Zoske, wherein the recess ensures that material flowing into the housing will not flow out of the housing where the knife plate interfaces with the housing (See Zoske Para [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Quinn in view of Zoske discloses the slurry macerator wherein the knife plate mounting comprises a recess for receiving the knife plate at the rim of the housing outlet (See claim 5 rejection above), wherein the knife plate mounting for the recess has a width dimension sized to receive and accommodate a diameter of the knife plate (Quinn – 24). After modification, Zoske teaches a recess (Zoske – 110) that receives the knife plate (Quinn – 24). (Quinn – 24)(See Zoske Para [0041]: an end 250 of the manifold cover 200 may be inserted into a receiving space 110 of the manifold bowel 100).
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 housing, disclosed by Quinn, to include a recess as the knife plate mounting, as taught by Zoske, wherein the depth dimension of the recess accommodate the knife plate so as to ensures that material flowing into the housing will not flow out of the housing where the knife plate interfaces with the housing (See Zoske Para [0034]).
Quinn in view of Zoske discloses the knife plate mounting comprising a recess except for wherein the knife plate stands proud of the recess. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the recess such that a surface of the knife plate is raised above a surface of the recess by a small margin, wherein the knife plate stands tall, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Quinn in view of Zoske discloses the slurry macerator wherein the knife plate mounting comprises the recess for receiving the knife plate at the rim of the housing outlet (See claim 6 rejection above), however, Quinn in view of Zoske fails to disclose wherein the recess is L-shaped in profile. 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 housing, disclosed by Quinn in view of Zoske, and make the recess L-shaped when it is known within the art that a U-shaped recess and a L-shaped recess both can transmit forces from a mating part into the part comprised of the recess. It would have been obvious design choice to incorporate a L-shaped profile for the recess.
Regarding claim 8, Quinn in view of Zoske discloses the slurry macerator wherein (See claim 6 rejection above), Quinn further discloses wherein the knife plate (Quinn – 24) is sandwiched between the outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16,17) and the recess (Zoske – 110) (See Zoske Para [0041]: an end 250 of the manifold cover 200 may be inserted into a receiving space 110 of the manifold bowel 100). 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 housing, disclosed by Quinn, to include a recess, as taught by Zoske, wherein the recess ensures that material flowing into the housing will not flow out of the housing where the knife plate interfaces with the housing (See Zoske Para [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Quinn in view of Zoske discloses the slurry macerator (See claim 8 rejection above), Quinn further discloses wherein the knife plate (Quinn – 24) is subjected to a compressive force by the outlet sideplate (Quinn – 16,17). The screws (Quinn – 26; FIG. 10) cause the side plate (Quinn – 16,17) to exert a compressive force against the knife plate (Quinn – 24)(See Quinn FIG. 10).
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
Prosecution Insights