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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-23-2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-23 are pending with Claims 2 and 6-23 withdrawn. Claims 1 and 3-5 are examined in this action.
Specification
The amendment filed 4-14-2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2020/078482 and of German Patent Application No. DE102019127762.0is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 11/8/2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 4-14-2022 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
To remedy the issue, applicant should remove the phrase “, which applications are incorporated by reference herein.” from the specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,782,853 to Heffelfinger in view of US 7,421,918 to Cable and DE 20 2007 013 127 U1.
In re Claim 1, Heffelfinger teaches a plastic strand granulator for pelletizing plastic strands (see Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 1), comprising:
a cutting rotor (see Figs. 1 and 4 #1) which is rotatable about a rotational axis (see Figs. 1 and 4, #3), the cutting rotor comprising cutting knifes (see Figs. 1 and 4, #5);
draw-in rollers configured to feed plastic strands to the cutting rotor with a predetermined feeding speed (see Fig. 1, #7/8/7/8 which are rollers configured to feed a strand at a predetermined feeding speed – see also Col. 2, ll. 33-53):
a knife strip (see Figs. 1 and 4, #6) which is arranged relative to the cutting rotor such that the knife strip and the cutting knifes of the cutting rotor together form a cutting gap for pelletizing plastic strands fed to the plastic strand granulator (see Fig. 1, #6),
wherein:
a length of a resulting plastic granulate produced by the plastic strand granulator is determined by:
the predetermined feeding speed of the plastic strands to the cutting rotor (in Heffelfinger, the feed speed of the workpiece is one factor in determining the length of the finished workpiece – the faster the workpiece is moved by structures #7/8, the longer the length of the resulting workpiece; the slower the workpiece is moved by structures #7/8, the shorter the length of the resulting workpiece);
a rotational speed of the cutting rotor (in Heffelfinger, the rotation speed of the cutting rotor is one factor in determining the length of the finished workpiece – the faster the cutter rotor moves the shorter the length of the resulting workpiece; the slower the cutting rotor moves the longer the resulting workpiece); and
a distance between the cutting knifes of the cutting rotor (in Heffelfinger, the distance between the cutting knifes and that of the blade on the cutting rotor is one of the factors determining the length of the workpiece. The larger the gap the larger the workpiece and conversely the shorter the gap the shorter the workpiece) (the examiner notes that the claims do not require a controller with a program motoring inputs from a sensor, for example, and adjusting these factors to change the length of the workpiece. The claims are directed to the structure of the device and are not method claims claiming a resulting output or a method of use – see also Col. 4, ll. 54 – Col. 5, ll. 47); and
the knife strip is held in a knife holder, which is pivotably mounted about the pivot axis (see Fig. 4, #67); and
an adjustment mechanism for setting the cutting gap by displacing a position of the knife strip relative to the cutting rotor (see Fig. 4, #87/77/78/79/81 – see also Col. 4, ll. 54 – Col. 5, ll. 47),
wherein the adjustment mechanism has at least one actuator with a thread (see Fig. 4, adjusting screw #79), which is configured to set a pivoting position of the knife strip relative to the cutting rotor, in order to set the cutting gap (see Col. 5, ll. 40-43 and Col. 2, ll. 33-54).
Heffelfinger does not teach the screw having a differential thread with reducing transmission ratio, and wherein a distal end of the at least one actuator is fixed in a shaft which is rotatably mounted in the knife holder and a proximal end of the at least one actuator is pivotal about a fixing pin which is orientated parallel to the shaft.
Cable teaches that it is known in the threaded actuator art to provide an actuator with differential thread with reducing transmission ratio (see Cable, abstract, Figs. 1-4B, Col. 4, ll. 40 – Col. 10, ll. 45).
In the same field of invention, threaded actuators, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the single thread actuator of modified an actuator with differential thread with reducing transition ratio as taught by Cable. Doing so is the substitution of one known actuator for another known actuator to achieve the result linearly moving a structure (see MPEP 2143, I, B). A differential thread with reducing transmission ratio actuator allows for minute, precise, adjustments for screw-based adjusters (see Cable, Col.1 , ll. 5-10 and Col. 37-48). Doing so enhances precision of the placement of the blade.
DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 teaches that it is known to adjust the position of a blade relative to a rotating blade with an actuator with a pivot connection at teach end of the actuator, or, in other words, an actuator wherein a distal end of the at least one actuator is fixed in a shaft which is rotatably mounted in the knife holder (see Figs. 1-4, piston rod #12 is pivotally attached to #6) and a proximal end of the at least one actuator is pivotable about a fixing pin which is oriented parallel to the shaft (see Figs. 1-4, #11 is pivotally attached to the “ground”).
In the same field of invention, actuators for positioning blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the pivot connections of DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 in the actuator structure of modified Heffelfinger. Doing so is the substitution of own known actuator connection construction for another known actuator construction to achieve the result of pivoting a blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 3, modified Heffelfinger, in re Claim 1, does not teach
a point of action of the at least one actuator on the knife holder is disposed further spaced apart from the pivot axis than the knife strip.
However, DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 teaches a point of action of the at least one actuator on the knife holder is disposed further spaced apart from the pivot axis than the knife strip (see annotated Fig. 2, below the Examiner notes that the actuator as a point of action on either end). Additionally, DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 teaches the distance from the end of the cylinder to the rotational axis is larger than the distance from then end of the cylinder to the blade holder – see annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, pivoting structure for blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the earliest effective filing date, to use the pivoting arrangement of DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 in the device of modified Heffelfinger. Doing so is the substitution of one known pivoting arrangement for another known pivoting arrangement to achieve the result of adjusting the blade gap (see MPEP 2143, I B).
In re Claim 4, modified Heffelfinger, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a point of action of the at least one actuator on the knife holder is disposed between the pivot axis and the knife strip.
DE 20 2007 013 127 U1, teaches wherein a point of action of the at least one actuator on the knife holder is disposed between the pivot axis and the knife strip (see annotated Fig. 2, above showing the connection of #12 to #6 is between #8 and #9).
In the same field of invention, pivoting structure for blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the earliest effective filing date, to use the pivoting arrangement of DE 20 2007 013 127 U1 in the device of modified Heffelfinger. Doing so is the substitution of one known pivoting arrangement for another known pivoting arrangement to achieve the result of adjusting the blade gap (see MPEP 2143, I B).
In re Claim 5, modified Heffelfinger, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the knife strip and the point of action of the at least one actuator on the knife holder are arranged relative to the pivot axis such that with reference to the displacement of the knife strip relative to an adjustment of the at least one actuator there results a leverage effect (see Heffelfinger, Fig. 4, showing a ratio between the point of action and the knife strip). Modified Heffelfinger is silent as to the ratio and therefore does not teach a ratio: of between 1:1 and 2:1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide any known ratio, including 1:1 and 2:1, as the ratio of the lever length to the pivot distance is a known variable to one of ordinary skill in the art. A higher ratio means more force is applied to the brake with less effort, while a lower ratio means more effort is needed to apply the same amount of force. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing, date to provide a ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 of the lever length to pivot distance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum result of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724