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
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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 6 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.
Claims 6 and 14 depend upon claim 1 which now establishes that the coupling element comprises two parts, one of which is explicitly axially movable with respect to the other. Because the first element is connected to the bearing element while the second element is explicitly axially movable it is unclear in scope saying, “the coupling element can be fixed in an axial direction relative to the bearing element”. It is additionally unclear how the knife can be fixed in an axial direction as it is now required to be rigidly connected to an axially movable part. For the purposes of examination the claim will be interpreted as requiring at least part of the coupling element to be fixed in an axial direction relative to the bearing element.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Note that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter et al. (US 2007/0003655 A1, hereinafter Brandstaetter) in view of Carriere et al. (US 3,107,310 A, hereinafter Carriere) and Gosney (US 3,266,090 A, hereinafter Gosney).
With regards to claim 1, Brandstaetter teaches an extruder (plastic melt supplier) having a die (3) through which material can be pressed in order to form extrudate in which the apparatus comprises a cutting element in the form of knives (4) which are mounted rotatably about an axis of rotation and which can be driven by a drive (9) such that torque is transmitted from the drive to the knife (Fig. 1, ¶ 0018-0019). Brandstaetter teaches that a bearing element (12) is provided which can be rigidly connected to the extruder and via which the knife is rotatably connected to the extruder (Fig. 1). Brandstaetter teaches that the drive is placed separately from the bearing element and a magnetic coupling is provided between the bearing element and the drive in order to transmit torque from the drive to the knife via magnetic forces (magnetic clutch 15, ¶ 0019). Brandstaetter teaches that the knife, bearing and magnetic clutch are within a housing (1) designed to filled with water under pressure (¶ 0018) which the drive should be outside of the housing. Brandstaetter teaches a coupling element is provided which has a first element 13, which first element is rotatably connected to the bearing element 12 and which coupling element is connected to the knife 4 on the one hand and to the drive 9 via the magnetic coupling element 14 on the other hand in order to transmit the torque from the drive 9 to the knife 4 via drive shaft 18 and the magnetic coupling element.
While Brandstaetter acknowledges the benefit of a contactless drive utilizing a magnetic clutch, Brandstaetter does not teach that the magnetic clutch (comprising a first driving magnetic part (14) and a second driven magnetic part (13)) has a first part located outside the housing and a second part located inside the housing.
With regards to the limitation that the extruder is "for producing pet food", this limitation is interpreted as reciting the intended use of the device. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Here, the extruder of Brandstaetter is capable of extruding and cutting a plasticized material and is therefore interpreted as capable of performing the intended use.
Reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, Carriere teaches a rotor mounting device for a rotating machine (col 1 ln 10-15) in which a drive shaft (1) is provided to drive a first magnetic driving rotor (42) which drives driven rotor (43) through the use of magnetic coupling in order to transmit torque and Carriere teaches that the driving rotor is outside of a sealed environment in which the rotating equipment and the driven rotor are placed (Fig. 3, col 3 ln 52-75). Carriere teaches that the use of a magnetic coupling presents the advantage of enabling the transmission of torque to be affected between two rotors, through a tight wall, one of the rotors being located in a hermetically sealed enclosure, no bearings or lubrication therefor, nor any sealing devices being provided on the shaft, since the latter are dispensed with (col 1 ln 57-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the magnetic coupling of Brandstaetter with the magnetic coupling arrangement of Carriere in which the driving rotor is sealed outside of the housing with an air gap therebetween through which torque is transmitted as discussed in Carriere as both relate to rotating devices in which there is a magnetic coupling between the drive and the rotated part presenting a reasonable expectation of success, doing eliminates the need for seals to protect the drive while keeping the benefits of magnetic torque transfer, and such presents a simple substitution of the magnetic clutch of Brandstaetter with both portions within the chamber for the alternative arrangement with the drive clutch portion sealed from the chamber yielding predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Brandstaetter does not teach that the coupling element which translates rotational motion from the magnetic clutch to the knife comprises a first element rotatably connected to the bearing element and a second element rotationally fixed to the first element about the axis of rotation while being axially movable along the rotational axis while being rigidly connected to the knife.
In a similar field of endeavor, Gosney teaches a known configuration for coupling the drive means of a granulator to the rotating knife in which the coupling element comprises two parts, a first element (12) attached to the rotational drive and a second element (16) which is rotationally fixed to the first element, but axially movable with a spring element (28) provided to allow the second element (16) to apply necessary force to the rigidly connected knife element (20) (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 32-72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to have substituted the monolithic coupling element of Brandstaetter with the first and second component coupling element of Gosney as both relate to underwater pelletizers presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so applies a known technique to a similar device to improve the device in the same way.
Regarding Claim 2, Brandstaetter teaches that an air gap is between the drive 9 and the knife 4 and torque can be transmitted via the air gap exclusively via magnetic forces, per [0019] and as can be seen in Figures 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 6, Gosney teaches that the first element is fixed in the axial direction to the driven element by a fastener such as a threaded bolt (23).
Regarding Claim 7, Gosney teaches including a preloaded spring element to control pressure on the knife against the die (Fig. 1, col 2 ln 32-72).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Gosney teaches that the purpose of the spring is to provide the knife with the required clearance which is critical as too little such as no clearance is known to cause severe knife and die wear while too great of clearance gets incomplete cutting action (col 1 ln 11-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill barring a showing of unexpected results to utilize a distance within the claimed range through routine optimization of the result effective variable of knife clearance as such is a recognized result effective variable in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Brandstaetter teaches the knife 4 is mounted rotatably about an axis of rotation and which can be driven by drive 9 in that a torque is transmitted from the drive 9 to the knife via drive shaft 18 of an electric motor (per [0019] and as seen in Figures 1 and 2),
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter and Carriere and Gosney as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Ammann (US 6,280,124 B1, hereinafter Miler).
Regarding Claim 12, the previous combination teaches the apparatus as applied above and Brandstaetter in [0003] generally discloses the desire to improve maintainability of the granulating device, which, while not expressly disclosed, would obviously motivate a person having ordinary skill in the art to want to improve the disengagement of the magnetic coupling (as the person of ordinary skill would understand disassembly is necessary for maintenance, and that given the axial design of the apparatus, axial movement would be the most logical option to move away the magnets to allow maintenance) potentially both as part of the disclosed knife replacement operation and for other maintenance purposes.
However, while Brandstaetter is silent on an appropriate tool for such axial movement, Ammann in art reasonably pertinent to the problem of axial/linear movement teaches per the title that a spindle with linear motor for axially moving a tool is known, and thus it would have been obvious to use such a known spindle to linearly and axially disengage the magnet of Brandstaetter, as this would be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of linear movement of a tool.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter and Carriere and Gosney as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Nee (NPL -Fundamentals of Tool Design).
Regarding claim 14, Gosney teaches that the first element is fixed in the axial direction to the driven element by a fastener such as a threaded bolt (23). Regarding the particular use of an alternative fastener such as a ball lock pin, Nee teaches many well-known means to secure mechanical moving parts for work including bolts as well as ball lock pins and other substitutable mechanical fasteners depending upon design considerations (pg. 143-150). Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize alternative well known fasteners such as a ball lock as doing so presents a simple substitution of known prior art fasteners yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the closest prior art of record as discuss above representing the two-part coupling element in the claimed configuration is Gosney in which linear motion along the axis is permitted to apply pressure to the knife while rotationally the second element is fixed to the first to supply consistent rotational motion. The prior art does not teach that this second element is also configured to tilt relative to the first element around an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation. Gosney teaches that the first and second elements are concentrically fixed by splines (18, 17).
The prior art of pelletizers teaches tilting knife elements using a particular mount on the coupling device in Fujiwara et al. (US 4260356), but this is the cutting element being configured to tilt and not an axially movable second element of the coupling element to which a knife is fixed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 09/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 4 under Brandstaetter and Carriere alone have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the argument with respect to the second element. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gosney in addition above.
Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion or motivation to use the magnetic clutch of Carriere in the alternative in Brandstaetter is not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2143.I.B the simple substitution of known prior art alternatives such as the magnetic clutch being entirely within the chamber or having the magnetic clutch separated by the chamber wall as taught by Carriere presents a case of prima facie obviousness in the absence of unexpected results as there is a reasonable expectation of success and a predictable result of isolating the driven clutch portion with the drive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
