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 § 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, 4-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter et al. (US 2017/0003655 A1, hereinafter Brandstaetter) in view of Carriere et al. (US 3,107,310 A, hereinafter Carriere).
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 effected 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, and doing eliminates the need for seals to protect the drive while keeping the benefits of magnetic torque transfer.
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 4, Brandstaetter teaches that the coupling element has a second element (the magnetic coupling element 14), which second element 14 is movable relative to the first element 13 in an axial direction and is connected to the first element in a rotationally fixed way around the axis of rotation.
Regarding Claim 5, Brandstaetter teaches that in the Figure 2 embodiment, the second element 14 can also be tilted relative to the first element around an axis perpendicular to the axis of rotation (per [0023] which allows for leveling of the distance between second element 14 and first element 13 with respect angular offsets – thus in order to correct the angular offsets, the second element 14 would tilt).
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, Brandstaetter’s configuration as seen in Figures 1 and 2 shows that the knife 4 can be fixed in axial direction relative to the bearing element 12, with the fixing element being broadly considered a ball lock pin.
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),
Claims 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter and Carriere as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Miler (US 3,673,298 A, hereinafter Miler).
Regarding Claims 7, 11, and 15, the previous combination teaches the apparatus as applied above, but is silent on a spring element as claimed to maintain a particular distance between the knife and die.
In analogous art pertaining to granulators, Miler teaches in Column 2 Lines 69-75 that a spring element is provided with which a preload can be applied to the knife in an axial direction in order to press the knife against the die when the apparatus is connected to the extruder and maintain the cutting edges of the knife blades in engagement with the face of the die plate (i.e. a distance between the die and knife of 0 mm to 0.5 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing use springs with a preload per Miller to ensure knife blade contact with the die in Brandstaetter, thus keeping the distance between knife and die 0 mm to 0.5 mm and overlapping the claimed ranges.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandstaetter and Carriere 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 mainteance) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the amended portion of Claim 1, Applicant simply states that it would not be readily apparent to a person of skill in the art that the teachings of Brandstaetter and Carriere suggest such a combination, without any further analysis, except to state that in other words the combination does not suggest a magnetic coupling wherein the rotor is mounted separately.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Additionally, the claims do not use language specifically requiring a magnetic coupling wherein the rotor is mounted separately, and in fact do not even use the word rotor. Therefore, until the claims actually recite such a rotor structure, this portion of the argument cannot be properly considered.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against Carriere’s role in the combination, Claim 1 recites the language that the magnetic coupling comprises an outside part out of the housing, and even by the description of Carriere cited by Applicant’s Arguments, Carriere meets this description. However, Applicant subtly shifts the argument say “Rather than described a magnetic coupling that comprises an outside part of the housing” which does not have a nexus to the aforementioned claim language, as comprising an outside part out of the housing is different than comprising an outside part of the housing and Carriere undoubtedly teaches an outside part out of the housing that the Examiner maintains would be obvious to apply per the rejection.
As for the reasoning to combine, Applicant argues that the Examiner does not provide a reason to modify Brandstaetter. However, the Examiner clearly provided the reason of eliminating the need for seals to protect the drive while keeping the benefits of magnetic torque transfer, reasoning that has not been specifically rebutted and is thus maintained.
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 RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights