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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 10, 2026 and February 12, 2026 were filed after the mailing date of the Final Rejection on November 5, 2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Non-final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated January 12, 2026 filed in response to the Final Rejection dated November 5, 2025.
Cancelation of claims 8 and 10 is acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Final Rejection are maintained based upon new grounds as explained below.
Response to Arguments
On page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant argues Wang (Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 217341537 U) does not show the features amended into claim 1. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 on the grounds previously explained is withdrawn.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees none of the other cited references disclose the features amended into claim 1. Schroers (W.I.P.O. Publication No. WO 2018/206200 A1) discloses scraper elements 42,44 in Fig. 4 each have a cutter element holding structure made up of clamping plate 56 and clamping receptacle 58 which hold stripper plate 52 as active cutting elements. It would have been obvious to include Schroers’ disclosed cutter element holding structure in Wang’s rotatable cutter unit so that Wang’s active cutting elements may be replaced when they become worn in the same way Schroers suggests in paragraphs [0034] and [0035].
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No. WO 2018/206200 A1 by Schroers, hereinafter “Schroers”, in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 217341537 U by Wang et al., hereinafter “Wang”, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,618,942 to O’Brien et al., hereinafter “Obrien”. Citation to Schroers and Wang is made to the translations.
Regarding claim 1, Schroers discloses a roller crusher (roller mill shown in Figs. 1-3; ¶[0025]) comprising:
two parallel rollers arranged to rotate in opposite directions (rollers 12 and 14 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0025]), and separated by a gap (gap 16 in Figs. 1 and 2; ¶[0025]), each roller having two ends;
a flange attached to one of the ends of one of the two parallel rollers (the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 shows flange element 18 at one end of roller 12 and flange element 20 at one end of roller 14; ¶[0027]),
the flange extending in a radial direction of the roller (flanges 18 and 20 extend radially outward from rollers 12 and 14, respectively), and
the flange having an extension (H) past an envelope surface of the roller (flanges 18 and 20 extend outwardly past the envelope barrel surface of rollers 12 and 14, respectively),
wherein the roller crusher further comprises a material removal device (material removal device scraper elements 42 and 44 in Fig. 3; ¶[0029]) arranged at an end of the one of the two parallel rollers having a flange at least partially allowing cutting away material accumulated on the flange and/or on the envelope surface at an end portion of the roller adjacent the flange (material removal device scrapper element 42 is arranged at the left end of roller 12 adjacent flange 18 to at least partially cut away material accumulated on flange 18 and/or on the envelope barrel surface of roller 12 adjacent flange 18; ¶[0029]).
Schroers further discloses scraper elements 42,44 in Figs. 4 and 5 each have a cutter element holding structure made up of clamping plate 56 and clamping receptacle 58 which hold stripper plate 52 as active cutting elements on stationary arms 50. See paragraphs [0030] through [0035].
Schroers does not disclose the material removal device comprises:
a rotatable cutter unit having a plurality of cutter elements arranged tangentially about the rotatable cutter unit,
a rotation device arranged to rotate the rotatable cutter unit,
wherein when being rotated by the rotation device, material is at least partially cut away.
In the same field of roller crushers, Wang teaches a roller crusher (Fig. 2) comprising:
two parallel rollers arranged to rotate in opposite directions, and separated by a gap (rollers 2 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0022]);
wherein the roller crusher further comprises a material removal device, comprising:
a rotatable cutter unit having a plurality of cutter elements arranged tangentially about the rotatable cutter unit on an annular engagement portion (Rotatable cutter unit scraping impellers 4 in Fig. 2 are shown with a plurality of cutter elements arranged tangentially about the impellers on an annular engagement portion; ¶[n0022]. See “Cutter Elements” and “Annular Engagement Portion” annotation to Fig. 2 of Wang reproduced below.),
each cutter element
a rotation device arranged to rotate the rotatable cutter unit (scraping impellers 4 are rotatably mounted on fixing rods 3 in Fig. 2; ¶[n0022]),
wherein when being rotated by the rotation device, material is at least partially cut away (¶[n0022] teaches material attached to the surface of rollers 2 is scraped off by scraping impellers 4 in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
1376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Wang to the roller crusher disclosed by Schroers by replacing Schroers’ stationary arm 50 with a rotatable impeller 4 as Wang teaches where Wang’s active cutting elements are held on Wang’s impeller 4 by a cutter element holding structure as disclosed by Schroers. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Wang to the disclosure of Schroers in this manner would achieve the predictable result of Schroers’ roller crusher with rotatable cutter material removal devices having cutter element holding structure allowing replacement of worn active cutting elements.
Claim 1 claims the rotation device arranged to rotate the rotatable cutter unit comprises a drive unit operable for rotating the rotatable cutter unit independently from the rotation of the parallel rollers. Neither Schroers nor Wang teach this limitation.
In the analogous field of rolling mills, Obrien teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to independently drive a material removal device arranged at an end of one of two parallel rollers separated by a gap. Fig. 2 of Obrien shows grinding devices 6 and 7 arranged at each end of roll 5 driven independently by motors 11 to grind the end surfaces of the roll flat with the center portion of the roll which has been worn by rolling material contacting the center portion of the roll. See page 1, line 29-47 and page 2, line 30-62.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive Wang’s material removal device scraper elements 42 independently with a separate drive as Obrien teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Obrien to the combination of Schroers in view of Wang would yield the predictable result of independently driving rotatable cutters as Obrien teaches.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. The rotatable cutter material removal device of Wang further teaches wherein each cutter element of the plurality of cutter elements presents an impact surface arranged to face the material to be cut away. Scraping Impeller 4 in Fig. 2 of Wang is shown with a plurality of cutter elements with an impact surface arranged to face material to be cut away from rollers 2.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. The rotatable cutter material removal device of Wang further teaches wherein said impact surface is substantially planar and arranged transverse to a tangential direction of motion of the cutter element. The impact surface of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 are shown as being substantially planar and arranged transverse to the tangential direction of motion of the cutter elements.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 2 unpatentable as explained above. The rotatable cutter material removal device of Wang further teaches wherein said impact surface has a front portion (the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 furthest away from the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3) and a rear portion which interconnect each other (the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 nearest to the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3), wherein the front portion is arranged upstream of the rear portion as seen in relation to a tangential direction of motion of the cutter element (the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 furthest away from the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3 is upstream of the rear portion in relation to motion of the cutter elements). When the rotatable cutter material removal device of Wang replaces material removal device scraper element 42 in Schroers’ roller crusher as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 furthest away from the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3 is arranged closer to Schroers’ flange 18 than the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 nearest to the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches the portion of the cutter elements of scraping impeller 4 in Fig. 2 nearest to the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3 is shaped so as to convey cut away material in a direction away from the flange. When the rotatable cutter material removal device of Wang replaces material removal device scraper element 42 in Schroers’ roller crusher as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the flat shape of the cutting elements shown in Fig. 2 of Wang would convey cut away material away from flange 18 in Fig. 3 of Schroers by the flat shape of Wang’s cutting elements not obstructing conveyance of material away from flange 18.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Schroers further discloses making cutting element stripping plate 52 of material removal device scraper element 42 out of wear-resistant material such as tungsten carbide. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wear-resistant material, such as tungsten carbide, to make Wang’s cutter elements of impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 to achieve the predictable result of a rotatable cutter with cutting elements made of wear-resistant material.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein the rotatable cutter unit further comprises a main support structure (see “Main Support Structure” annotation to Fig. 2 of Wang reproduced below) and at least two cutter element support structures, wherein the at least two cutter element support structures are releasably arranged with respect to the main support structure and shaped as circular ring sectors which together form a circular ring, and which circular ring presents the annular engagement portion (impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 of Wang is shown with at least two cutter element support structures in the form of recess pockets which are releasably arranged with respect to the Main Support Structure and are shaped in a circular ring sector on the Annular Engagement Portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
884
1210
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein each cutting element of the plurality of cutting elements is releasably arranged in the annular engagement portion by a geometrical locking engagement. Fig. 2 of Wang as annotated in the rejection of claim 1 above shows the Annular Engagement Portion has geometrical locking engagement pockets which receive the rear portions of the cutting elements therewithin.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 12 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein the geometrical locking engagement is at least partly defined by a protruding structure of the cutting element being inserted into an associated recess of the annular engagement portion, wherein the protruding structure and the associated recess has complementary shapes. The rear portion of the cutting elements of Wang’s impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 is shown as protruding structure inserted within an associated recess pocket of the Annular Engagement Portion, as annotated above, where they have complementary shapes.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 13 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein the associated recess of the annular engagement portion is defined on a side surface thereof. The recess pockets shown in the Annular Engagement Portion, as annotated above, are defined on an outer side surface thereof.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 14 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein each cutter element of the plurality of cutter elements comprises a cutter element holding structure (the rear portion of the cutter elements of the impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 has structure which holds the cutting element within the recess pocket of the Annular Engagement Portion) and an active cutting element attached thereto, wherein the active cutting element presents said impact surface (the front portion of the cutting elements of the impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 furthest away from the rotatable connection to fixing rod 3 are active cutting elements presenting impact surfaces), and wherein the protruding structure forms a part of the cutter element holding structure (the rear portion of the cutting elements having protruding structure which protrudes into the recess pockets that form a port of the cutter element holding structure).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 15 unpatentable as explained above. Schroers further discloses cutter element holding structure mounting plate 46 in Fig. 4 (¶[0034]) comprises support portion arm 50 and clamping plate 56 protruding out from mounting plate 46. But Schroers does not disclose this feature within the context of a rotatable cutter unit.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the hold structure disclosed by Schroers in the rotatable cutter unit impeller scraper 4 taught by Wang to provide structural support to the cutting elements of impeller scraper 4 in the same way Schroers discloses.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Schroers nor Wang teach further comprising wear shields structured and arranged to protect at least parts of the rotatable cutter unit.
In the analogous field of rolling mills, Obrien teaches a rolling mill (Fig. 1) with rotating grinding wheel 17 used to grind the surface of rollers 2 and 3. See page 2, line 58-105. The grinding wheel is shielded by shield 24 which protects grinding wheel 17 from the environment within the rolling mill.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a shield about Wang’s impeller scraper 4 to protect it from the environment within the roller crusher in the same way Obrien teaches using a shield to protect rotating grinding wheel 17 with a rolling mill. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Obrien to the impeller scraper of Wang would yield the predictable result of providing protection to Wang’s rotating impeller scraper during operation of the roller crusher.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein the rotatable cutter unit is arranged with respect to the roller at 270° to 360° as defined when the rotational direction of the roller is clockwise. Fig. 2 of Wang shows rotatable cutter unit impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 arranged at 270°. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Wang’s impeller scraper 4 at 270° in relation to Schroers’ roller 12 in Fig. 3 in the same way Wang teaches.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Wang further teaches wherein the rotatable cutter unit is arranged with respect to the roller with the flange at 180° to 270° as defined when the rotational direction of the roller is clockwise. Fig. 2 of Wang shows rotatable cutter unit impeller scraper 4 in Fig. 2 arranged at 270°. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Wang’s impeller scraper 4 at 270° in relation to Schroers’ roller 12 in Fig. 3 in the same way Wang teaches.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders a method for operating the roller crusher according to claim 1 unpatentable. Schroers further discloses at least the step of at least partially cutting away material accumulated on the flange and/or on the envelope surface at an end portion of the roller adjacent the flange by means of the material removal device. See paragraph [0017].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien and Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 113976221 A by Zhao, hereinafter “Zhao”. Citation to Zhao is made to the translation.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Schroers nor Wang teach the rear portion is substantially planar and forms an oblique angle with respect to the tangential direction of motion of the cutter element.
In the same field of roller crushers, Zhao teaches roller crusher roller pair 31 and 32 in Fig. 2 with scrapers 4 which scrape the surface of rollers 31 and 32. Fig. 3 of Zhao teaches the rear portion of the impact surface of scrapers 4 is formed at an oblique angle from the body of the scraper. See “Impact Surface” and oblique angle θ annotations to Fig. 3 of Zhao reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
742
858
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the impact surface of Wang’s cutting elements so as to have an oblique angle between the rear portion of the impact surface and the remainder of the cutting element in the same way Zhao teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Zhao to the impact surfaces of Wang’s cutting elements would achieve the predictable result of providing further clearance for the conveyance of material away from the flange area of Schroers roller.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien and U.S. Patent No. 2,991,019 to Sugden, hereinafter “Sugden”.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Schroers in view of Wang and further in view of Obrien renders the roller crusher according to claim 5 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Schroers nor Wang teach wherein the rear portion is curved inwardly so as to form a bowl-shape.
In the same field of roller crushers, Sugden teaches a grinding roller mill (Fig. 1) employing scraper bar g used to scraper material from rollers b and c as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The rear portion of scraper bar g is curved inwardly so as to form a bowl-shape (see “Bowl-Shape” annotation to Fig. 2 of Sugden reproduced below), the back side of which promotes movement of material as shown by the arrows in Fig. 3. See col. 2, line 13-46.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
848
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to curve the rear portion of Wang’s impact surfaces inwardly so as to form a bowl-shape in the same way Sugden teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Sugden to Wang’s impact surfaces would achieve the predictable result of redirecting material flow as Sugden teaches.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725