DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding base claim 1, the scope of the claim appears to be mixing two separate embodiments of the supporting specification, thus making the boundaries of the claimed invention unclear. Claim 1 describes support rods that have only been shown and taught as included in the embodiment of figures 6-13, but also describes a tensioner that is limited to the different embodiment shown in figures 1-5. Claim 3 further teaches a “removably coupled” limitation that appears to be a mixture of the two distinct embodiments and claim 9 includes “a free of mechanical engagement” limitation that appears in conflict with the tensioner element. Thus, it is unclear what embodiment is being claimed or the scope of the claimed embodiment. Examiner requests clarification on what specific embodiment is being claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the language “wherein the stringers are removably coupled to the at least one rib” also appears to be mixing two different embodiments and is thus also indefinite. That is, the embodiment that includes support rods (fig. 6) shows stringers connected to the tops of rib (440) and does not appear to show a removable coupling. Further, Applicant’s specification fails to clarify this issue and is limited to teaching that “support rods are removable attached to the stringers” (fig. 13; para. 48), thus it is unclear if Applicant is confusing the rib and support rod elements, mixing embodiments, or otherwise.
Regarding claim 9, the language “screen assembly overlies the grid free of mechanical engagement” has no clear boundary and is thus indefinite. Here, it is unclear what is being defined by “mechanical engagement” as this language is unsupported by the specification and, moreover, this element appears in conflict with the tensioner described in claim 1. Examiner requests clarification on what is being defined by this limitation.
Claim 12 and 13 recite the limitation "they". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner requests clarification and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 15-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freissle et al. (“Freissle”)(US 2022/0118482).
Freissle teaches a vibratory screening device, comprising:
(re: claim 1) a screen deck having:
a frame that is configured to be mounted to a vibratory screening machine (fig. 1 showing frame structure underneath stringer 52, 110; para. 40);
a plurality of stringers (near 52, 110; para. 51-52) mounted on the frame and arranged substantially parallel to one another;
a plurality of support rods (120 or 130) mounted to the stringers, wherein each support rod extends between and is coupled to at least two of the stringers (fig. 1);
a screen assembly overlying a grid formed by the plurality of stringers and the plurality of support rods (fig. 1 near 200); and
a tensioner for tensioning the screen assembly over the grid and securing the screen to the screen deck (fig. 4, 5 near 150; para. 42-43 and 58-59 teaching clamp bar assembly for tensioning and fastening screen assembly over the grid and securing the screen to the deck);
(re: claim 2) at least one rib that extends between and is coupled to at least two of the stringers, wherein the rib is disposed below top edges of the stringers in which they are coupled (fig. 1 showing frame structure underneath stringer comprising at least one rib, wherein said stringers are coupled to a top of said at least one rib);
(re: claim 3) wherein the support rods are removable coupled to a stringer (fig. 1);
(re: claim 4) wherein the plurality of stringers extend in a first direction and wherein at least some of the plurality of support rods extend in a second direction that is transverse to the first direction (fig. 1);
(re: claim 5) wherein the second direction is substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Id.);
(re: claim 6) wherein each of the plurality of stringers has an upper surface defining a convex profile (fig. 18 showing embodiment wherein upper surface of stringers define a convex profile);
(re: claim 7) wherein each of the plurality of stringers has an upper surface defining a linear profile (fig. 1);
(re: claim 8) wherein the screen assembly has a substantially flat lower surface (fig. 1);
(re: claim 9) wherein the screen assembly overlies the grid free of mechanical engagement with the grid (fig. 1 showing screen assembly overlying grid and secured via tensioner, wherein Examiner regards this configuration as “free of mechanical engagement” as taught by Applicant);
(re: claim 11) wherein each stringer includes at least one mounting aperture provided on an upper portion of the stringer, wherein each support rod is at least partially located within mounting apertures of two or more stringers (fig. 1, 2 showing mounting aperture near 114, 116 for locating support rods in upper portion of a stringer; para. 53-54);
(re: claim 12) wherein a depth of the mounting apertures and a cross-sectional dimension of the support rods are such than when the support rods are located within corresponding ones of the mounting apertures, top edges of the support rods are at or below the top edges of the stringers
(re: claim 13) wherein a depth of the mounting apertures and a cross-sectional dimension of the support rods are such than when the support rods are located with corresponding ones of the mounting apertures, top edges of the support rods are above top edges of the stringers
(re: claim 15) wherein each of the plurality of support rods comprises a core and a cover surrounding the core, and
wherein the cover of each support rod is formed of a deformable material such that the cover can be at least partially deformed when the support rod is inserted into corresponding mounting apertures of stringers (fig. 7, 9 and para. 66-67 teaching that support rod may be configured as rubber around core/tube).
Freissle further teaches a vibratory screening machine
(re: claim 16) incorporating the screen deck of claim 1 (para. 40 teaching that screen deck may be integrated into a vibratory machine).
(re: claims 17-18 and 20-21) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the vibratory screening machine cited above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freissle et al. (“Freissle”)(US 2022/0118482) in view of what is well known in the art.
Freissle as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 10 19) wherein the screen assembly comprises a flexible screen free of stiffening elements;
(re: claim 14) wherein an opening is formed at the top of each mounting aperture, and wherein a width of the opening of each mounting aperture is smaller than a diameter of the support rod located in the mounting aperture.
Here, it is noted that Freissle already teaches it is well-known in the screening arts that stiffening elements are an optional feature to increase stiffness in a length direction while allowing the screen frame flexibility to conform to different heights (para. 47, 61).
Examiner further takes Official Notice that the press-fit feature, i.e., using a top aperture smaller than an element diameter, is also well-known in the screening arts when connecting structural elements.
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are well-known features in the screening arts and are already widely implemented. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freissle for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights