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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 19th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 21, 29 and 31-32 have been amended. Claims 7, 17, 27 and 37 have been canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-16, 18-26, 28-36 and 38-41 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the objections and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 7th, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 10406560) in view of Parr et al. (US 8991616).
Regarding claim 1, Davis (US 10406560) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 1A #10 mounting on #20, Col. 3 lines 51-53) with a shaft axis (Fig. 1B #15), the disc (Fig. 1B #10) comprising:
a leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) that pushes material along an axial conveyance direction (Col. 8 lines 55-64) that is parallel to the shaft axis (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110 pushes material in direction parallel to axis of #110), the leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) is constructed of a structural material comprising metal or ceramic (Col. 9 lines 23-33).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material.
Davis (US 10406560) states that it is also possible to form the described disc shapes out of molded elastomeric materials such as rubber or plastic (Col. 9 lines 33-35).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16), the disc comprising: a distal face/edge (Fig. 8 face of #81) constructed of a pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29).Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 1, further comprising a trailing face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110) opposite to the leading face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110 opposite right-facing surface of #110).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16) comprising a trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83), the trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83) is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the interfacial opening extends laterally between the secondary disc of the first disc assembly and a primary disc of the second disc assembly (Col. 11 lines 10-12), and the different sizes and alignment of the discs may create a stair-step shaped spacing laterally between discs on the two shafts, and different spacing between the primary discs and secondary discs, as well as the size and shapes of the primary and secondary discs can be varied according to the types of material being separated (Col. 11 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a trailing face with a higher friction force and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 3, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 1, wherein the disc is a wraparound disc (Col. 7 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 4, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 1, wherein the disc is a clamshell disc (Col. 8 lines 1-9) comprised of a first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) and a second part (Fig. 13A #130-2).
Regarding claim 5, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 4, wherein the first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) is mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 11A see #130 mounted to #20) in a staggered position (Col. 8 lines 1-7) relative to the mounting of the second part (Fig. 13A #130-2).
Regarding claim 8, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 1, wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16) wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 9, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 1, wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16) wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 outer edge of #81) extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material (Fig. 9 see outer edge of #81 extends beyond outer edge of #82).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 10, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 1, wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16) wherein the structural material (Fig. 9 #82) is affixed to the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 #81) by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener (Col. 4 lines 21-24).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the discs may be attached in spaced relation to other discs axially along the hubs in any suitable manner, as for example by welding or applying mounting bolts and/or brackets (Col. 4 lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to attach the components of the disc along the disc shaft.
Regarding claim 11, Davis (US 10406560) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 3 lines 51-53), the auger comprising:
a disc shaft (Fig. 1B #20) with a shaft axis (Fig. 1B #15);
a plurality of discs (Fig. 1B #10) mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 1B plurality of #10 mounted to #20), each disc in the plurality comprising:
a leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) that pushes material along an axial conveyance direction (Col. 8 lines 55-64) that is parallel to the shaft axis (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110 pushes material in direction parallel to axis of #110), the leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) is constructed of a structural material comprising metal or ceramic (Col. 9 lines 23-33).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material.
Davis (US 10406560) states that it is also possible to form the described shapes out of molded elastomeric materials such as rubber or plastic (Col. 9 lines 33-35).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12), the disc comprising: a distal face/edge (Fig. 8 face of #81) constructed of a pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 12, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the auger of claim 11, wherein each disc in the plurality further comprises a trailing face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110) opposite to the leading face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110 opposite right-facing surface of #110).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the trailing face is constructed of a pliable elastomeric material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) comprising a trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83), the trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83) is constructed of a pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the interfacial opening extends laterally between the secondary disc of the first disc assembly and a primary disc of the second disc assembly (Col. 11 lines 10-12), and the different sizes and alignment of the discs may create a stair-step shaped spacing laterally between discs on the two shafts, and different spacing between the primary discs and secondary discs, as well as the size and shapes of the primary and secondary discs can be varied according to the types of material being separated (Col. 11 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include the trailing face is constructed of a pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a trailing face with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 13, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the auger of claim 11, wherein each disc in the plurality is a wraparound disc (Col. 7 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 14, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the auger of claim 11, wherein each disc in the plurality is a clamshell disc (Col. 8 lines 1-9) comprised of a first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) and a second part (Fig. 13A #130-2).
Regarding claim 15, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the auger of claim 14, wherein the first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) is mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 11A see #130 mounted to #20) in a staggered position (Col. 8 lines 1-7) relative to the mounting of the second part (5 Fig. 13A #130-15).
Regarding claim 18, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the auger of claim 11, wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 19, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the auger of claim 11, wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 outer edge of #81) extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material (Fig. 9 see outer edge of #81 extends beyond outer edge of #82).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 20, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the auger of claim 11, wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein the structural material (Fig. 9 #82) is affixed to the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 #81) by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener (Col. 4 lines 21-24).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the discs may be attached in spaced relation to other discs axially along the hubs in any suitable manner, as for example by welding or applying mounting bolts and/or brackets (Col. 4 lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to attach the components of the disc along the disc shaft.
Regarding claim 21, Davis (US 10406560) teaches a disc screen (Col. 3 lines 51-53) comprising:
a plurality of augers (Fig. 5A #110, 115), each auger in the plurality comprising:
a disc shaft (Fig. 1B #20) with a shaft axis (Fig. 1B #15);
a plurality of discs (Fig. 1B #10) mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 1B #10 mounted on #20), each disc in the plurality comprising:
a leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) that pushes material along an axial conveyance direction (Col. 8 lines 55-64) that is parallel to the shaft axis (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110 pushes material in direction parallel to axis of #110), the leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) is constructed of a structural material comprising metal or ceramic (Col. 9 lines 23-33); and
a support frame (Fig. 4C #125) constructed to support the plurality of augers such that each auger in the plurality is parallel to the adjacent auger in the plurality (Figs. 4B, 5A #125 configured to support #110, 115);
a motor (Fig. 4C #90) or set of motors connected to the disc shafts (Fig. 4B see #90 connected to #20) in the plurality of augers, constructed to rotate the disc shafts in the plurality of augers (Col. 8 lines 40-48).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material.
Davis (US 10406560) states that it is also possible to form the described shapes out of molded elastomeric materials such as rubber or plastic (Col. 9 lines 33-35).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12), each disc comprising: a distal face/edge (Fig. 8 face of #81) constructed of a pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 22, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc screen of claim 21, wherein each disc in the plurality further comprises a trailing face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110) opposite to the leading face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110 opposite right-facing surface of #110).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) comprising a trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83), the trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83) is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the interfacial opening extends laterally between the secondary disc of the first disc assembly and a primary disc of the second disc assembly (Col. 11 lines 10-12), and the different sizes and alignment of the discs may create a stair-step shaped spacing laterally between discs on the two shafts, and different spacing between the primary discs and secondary discs, as well as the size and shapes of the primary and secondary discs can be varied according to the types of material being separated (Col. 11 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a trailing surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 23, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc screen of claim 21, wherein each disc in the plurality is a wraparound disc (Col. 7 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 24, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc screen of claim 21, wherein each disc in the plurality is a clamshell disc (Col. 8 lines 1-9) comprised of a first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) and a second part (Fig. 13A #130-2).
Regarding claim 25, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc screen of claim 24, wherein the first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) is mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 11A see #130 mounted to #20) in a staggered position (Col. 8 lines 1-7) relative to the mounting of the second part (5 Fig. 13A #130-15).
Regarding claim 28, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc screen of claim 21, wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the elastomeric material is rubber or plastic as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 29, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc screen of claim 21, wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 outer edge of #81) extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material (Fig. 9 see outer edge of #81 extends beyond outer edge of #82).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 30, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc screen of claim 21, wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 8 #80 mounting on #16) wherein the structural material (Fig. 9 #82) is affixed to the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 #81) by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener (Col. 4 lines 21-24).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the discs may be attached in spaced relation to other discs axially along the hubs in any suitable manner, as for example by welding or applying mounting bolts and/or brackets (Col. 4 lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to attach the components of the disc along the disc shaft.
Claims 6, 16, 26, 31-36 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 10406560) in view of Parr et al. (US 8991616) and further in view of Davis (US 6250478).
Regarding claim 6, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 4, wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 11-16), wherein the clamshell disc (Fig. 3A #302) comprises a structural insert (Fig. 3A #318).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that the rigid frame imparts stiffness to the disc portion and improves the clamping force when two disc portions are clamped to a shaft (Col. 7 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to impart stiffness to the disc and improve the clamping force when two clamshell parts are clamped to a shaft.
Regarding claim 16, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the auger of claim 14, wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches an auger for use in a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 11-16), wherein the clamshell disc (Fig. 3A #302) comprises a structural insert (Fig. 3A #318).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that the rigid frame imparts stiffness to the disc portion and improves the clamping force when two disc portions are clamped to a shaft (Col. 7 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to impart stiffness to the disc and improve the clamping force when two clamshell parts are clamped to a shaft.
Regarding claim 26, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc screen of claim 24, wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches a disc screen (Col. 1 lines 11-16), wherein the clamshell disc (Fig. 3A #302) comprises a structural insert (Fig. 3A #318).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that the rigid frame imparts stiffness to the disc portion and improves the clamping force when two disc portions are clamped to a shaft (Col. 7 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to impart stiffness to the disc and improve the clamping force when two clamshell parts are clamped to a shaft.
Regarding claim 31, Davis (US 10406560) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Fig. 1A #10 mounting on #20, Col. 3 lines 51-53) with a shaft axis (Fig. 1B #15), the disc comprising:
a leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) that pushes material along an axial conveyance direction (Col. 8 lines 55-64) that is parallel to the shaft axis (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110 pushes material in direction parallel to axis of #110), the leading face (Fig. 5A right-facing surface of #110) is constructed of an inner structural material comprising metal or ceramic (Col. 9 lines 23-33).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material.
Davis (US 10406560) states that it is also possible to form the described shapes out of molded elastomeric materials such as rubber or plastic (Col. 9 lines 33-35).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 8-12), the disc comprising: a distal face/edge (Fig. 8 face of #81) constructed of a pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include a distal face/edge constructed of a pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the leading face is constructed of an outer pliable sacrificial elastomeric material with an inner structural material comprising metal or ceramic, wherein the sacrificial elastomeric material is constructed to wear away during use of the disc, thereby exposing the durable structural material as the outer surface of the leading face.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 11-16), the disc comprising: the leading face (Figs. 3A, 3B leading face of #110) is constructed of an outer pliable sacrificial elastomeric material (Fig. 3A #326) with an inner structural material (Fig. 3A #318) comprising metal or ceramic (Col. 8 lines 16-19), wherein the sacrificial elastomeric material is constructed to wear away during use of the disc (Col. 1 lines 50-54, Col. 7 lines 13-33), thereby exposing the durable structural material as the outer surface of the leading face (Col. 1 lines 50-54, Col. 7 lines 13-33).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that in disc screen apparatuses that are used for classification of recyclable materials, the heavy continuous flow of recyclable materials tends to result in quick wear and a significant degree of damage to the discs (Col. 1 lines 50-54), and the discs of this system may be separated and removed from the shaft when damaged, and replaced by pieces of another, undamaged disc (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 2). Davis (US 6250478) further explains that for the disc to function well, it must have a flexible impacting surface with high abrasion resistance for impacting the materials, while at the same time having a “sticky” surface with a high coefficient of friction, and there are a number of materials, such as rubber that may be used in making the disc (Col. 7 lines 12-17), and a disc portion has an internal rigid frame to which a rubber material is molded (Col. 7 lines 21-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include the leading face is constructed of an outer pliable sacrificial elastomeric material with an inner structural material comprising metal or ceramic, wherein the sacrificial elastomeric material is constructed to wear away during use of the disc, thereby exposing the durable structural material as the outer surface of the leading face as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to provide a disc with a flexible impacting surface with high abrasion resistance, therefore improving the function of the disc and reducing the frequency of replacement.
Regarding claim 32, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 31, further comprising a trailing face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110) opposite to the leading face (Fig. 5A left-facing surface of #110 opposite right-facing surface of #110).
Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 8-12) comprising a trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83), the trailing face (Fig. 9 see trailing face of #81 which faces #83) is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the interfacial opening extends laterally between the secondary disc of the first disc assembly and a primary disc of the second disc assembly (Col. 11 lines 10-12), and the different sizes and alignment of the discs may create a stair-step shaped spacing laterally between discs on the two shafts, and different spacing between the primary discs and secondary discs, as well as the size and shapes of the primary and secondary discs can be varied according to the types of material being separated (Col. 11 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include the trailing face is constructed of the pliable elastomeric material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a trailing surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 33, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 31, wherein the disc is a wraparound disc (Col. 7 lines 25-30).
Regarding claim 34, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 31, wherein the disc is a clamshell disc (Col. 8 lines 1-9) comprised of a first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) and a second part (Fig. 13A #130-2).
Regarding claim 35, Davis (US 10406560) teaches the disc of claim 34, wherein the first part (Fig. 13A #130-1) is mounted to the disc shaft (Fig. 11A see #130 mounted to #20) in a staggered position (Col. 8 lines 1-7) relative to the mounting of the second part (5 Fig. 13A #130-15).
Regarding claim 36, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 34, wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 11-16), wherein the clamshell disc (Fig. 3A #302) comprises a structural insert (Fig. 3A #318).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that the rigid frame imparts stiffness to the disc portion and improves the clamping force when two disc portions are clamped to a shaft (Col. 7 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the clamshell disc comprises a structural insert as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to impart stiffness to the disc and improve the clamping force when two clamshell parts are clamped to a shaft.
Regarding claim 38, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 31, wherein the elastomeric material and/or the sacrificial elastomeric material is rubber or plastic.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein the elastomeric material and/or the sacrificial elastomeric material is rubber or plastic (Col. 10 lines 42-53).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the elastomeric material and/or the sacrificial elastomeric material is rubber or plastic as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, , as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system..
Regarding claim 39, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 31, wherein the elastomeric material and the sacrificial elastomeric material comprise the same material.
Davis (US 6250478) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 11-16), wherein the elastomeric material (Col. 7 lines 13-19) and the sacrificial elastomeric material (Col. 7 lines 21-26) comprise the same material (Col. 7 lines 13-19, 21-26).
Davis (US 6250478) explains that in disc screen apparatuses that are used for classification of recyclable materials, the heavy continuous flow of recyclable materials tends to result in quick wear and a significant degree of damage to the discs (Col. 1 lines 50-54), and the discs of this system may be separated and removed from the shaft when damaged, and replaced by pieces of another, undamaged disc (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 2). Davis (US 6250478) further explains that for the disc to function well, it must have a flexible impacting surface with high abrasion resistance for impacting the materials, while at the same time having a “sticky” surface with a high coefficient of friction, and there are a number of materials, such as rubber that may be used in making the disc (Col. 7 lines 12-17), and a disc portion has an internal rigid frame to which a rubber material is molded (Col. 7 lines 21-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the elastomeric material and the sacrificial elastomeric material comprise the same material as taught by Davis (US 6250478) in order to provide a disc with flexible impacting surfaces with high abrasion resistance, therefore improving the function of the disc and reducing the frequency of replacement.
Regarding claim 40, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 31, wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 outer edge of #81) extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material (Fig. 9 see outer edge of #81 extends beyond outer edge of #82).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the disc assembly may be made from a unitary piece of rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr et al. (US 8991616) further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein an outer edge of the elastomeric material extends beyond an outer edge of the structural material as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to provide a surface which contacts material with a higher friction force, as this would prevent materials from adhering and forming clumps and therefore prevent jamming which may cause mechanical shock or failure in the system.
Regarding claim 41, Davis (US 10406560) lacks teaching the disc of claim 31, wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener.
Parr et al. (US 8991616) teaches a disc for mounting on a disc shaft (Col. 1 lines 8-12) wherein the structural material (Fig. 9 #82) is affixed to the elastomeric material (Fig. 9 #81) by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener (Col. 4 lines 21-24).
Parr et al. (US 8991616) explains that the discs may be attached in spaced relation to other discs axially along the hubs in any suitable manner, as for example by welding or applying mounting bolts and/or brackets (Col. 4 lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Davis (US 10406560) to include wherein the structural material is affixed to the elastomeric material by an adhesive, clamp, or fastener as taught by Parr et al. (US 8991616) in order to attach the components of the disc along the disc shaft.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Parr’s discs lack any leading face or trailing face because there is no axial conveyance direction and therefore no surface that pushes material axially along the shaft, and the system disclosed by Parr is fundamentally different from the present invention’s asymmetric compound construction in which the leading face that performs axial conveyance in an auger screen is formed of hard and durable structural material comprising metal or ceramic while the trailing face and distal face/edge remain pliable elastomeric material, the Examiner would like to clarify the following.
Parr states that a major problem with disc screens is jamming, and material that jams between the discs and the adjacent shaft may physically cause the screen to stop working properly or produce momentary stoppages, which cause mechanical shock and premature failure of the assemblies and drive mechanism (Col. 1 lines 25-33) and explains that in the case of sorting small sized materials, the material may tend to adhere to itself, resulting in jamming of the screen and a less efficient separation (Col. 5 lines 20-29). This problem is relevant to standard disc screens as well as auger screens, as both rely on the gap between discs to separate undersized materials from oversized materials. Parr explains that an interfacial opening (i.e. opening between faces) extends laterally between the secondary disc of the first disc assembly and a primary disc of the second disc assembly (Col. 11 lines 10-12), and the different sizes and alignment of the discs may create a stair-step shaped spacing laterally between discs on the two shafts, and different spacing between the primary discs and secondary discs, as well as the size and shapes of the primary and secondary discs can be varied according to the types of material being separated (Col. 11 lines 35-40). Therefore, Parr explains that the gap for sorting undersized materials creates a stair-step shaped spacing, such that material may travel from the primary disc to the secondary disc, and from the secondary disc to the spacer as it is directed towards the interfacial opening, and further explains that the interfacial opening (gap) extends laterally between a face of the secondary disc and a face of a primary disc. Parr explains that the disc assembly may be made from rubber, polymer, nylon, plastic, steel, metal, other materials of varying hardness and/or softness, or any combination thereof, and a softer material, such as rubber, may provide more friction force, whereas harder material, such as steel, may have improved durability (Col. 10 lines 42-47). Parr further states that the primary disc may be formed from a separate material than the secondary disc, and the secondary material may be harder than the first material (Col. 10 lines 47-53). Therefore, Parr teaches that the opposing surfaces which form the interfacial opening may be made of different materials, wherein the surface of the secondary disc may be harder than the surface of the primary disc. Parr teaches the combination of surfaces made of different materials facing an opening in a size based separation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this solution to jamming between the discs in the size based separation as taught by Parr would likewise benefit an auger screen which provides similar size based separation in addition to the axial screw conveyance of stringy wrapping materials.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the rigid frame as taught by Davis (US 6250478) is entirely encased in molded rubber and serves only to provide internal support, and it is never exposed as a material-engaging surface, the Examiner would like to clarify that Davis explains that the molded rubber provides a flexible impacting surface with high abrasion resistance for impacting the materials, while at the same time having a “sticky” surface with a high coefficient of friction (Col. 7 lines 12-17). Therefore, the elastomeric material wears away slowly during use of the disc, and this slow abrasion of the elastomeric material would eventually expose the internal support. Davis additionally explains that the heavy continuous flow of recyclable materials tends to result in quick wear and a significant degree of damage to the discs (Col. 1 lines 50-54), and the discs of this system may be separated and removed from the shaft when damaged, and replaced by pieces of another, undamaged disc (Col. 1 line 64-Col. 2 line 2). Therefore, the discs may be replaced after the flexible impacting surface is worn away and the internal support is exposed, since the disc no longer provides a flexible impacting surface with a high coefficient of friction desired during operation of the screen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights