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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated April 13, 2026 filed in response to the Final Rejection dated February 13, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 10 distinguishing the claim over the cited prior art. However, claim 10 continues to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by another prior art reference as explained below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 10 distinguishing the claims over the primary prior art reference cited in the obviousness rejections rejecting the dependent claims as being unpatentable. However, those dependent claims continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over a different prior art reference combination as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Starting at the top of page 7 of the Amendment, Applicant asserts claim 10 has been amended to clarify structural aspects of the claimed invention which distinguish the claim over the disclosure of ThyssenKrupp (DE 20 2012 012 460 U1). Examiner finds the assertion persuasive because ThyssenKrupp does not expressly disclose lateral slides 9 and 10 are movable relative to the roll nip to define the feeding location. Paragraph [0023] of the European Patent Office translation states lateral slides 9 and 10 control the material flow but does not disclose detail of how the control is achieved. Thus, the anticipation rejection based upon ThyssenKrupp is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 504,761 to Thompson, hereinafter “Thompson”.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses a high-pressure roll press for high-pressure comminution of milling material in a roll nip (roller mill press shown in Figs. 1 and 2; page 1, line 20-25), comprising:
two counter-rotating rolls (rolls E’ and F’ in Fig. 2; page 1, line 43) which therebetween configure the roll nip through which the milling material to be comminuted passes during comminution under high pressure (the roll nip is defined between rolls E’ and F’ in Fig. 2), in a process configuring in the roll nip a fracture in a structure of the milling material; and
a feeder device which feeds the milling material uniformly onto the roll nip at a feeding location (feeder device hopper B in Figs. 1 and 2; page 1, line 33), wherein a volume of the fed milling material configures a compaction zone which extends from approximately the center of the roll nip to just beyond a center of the roll nip (fed milling material configures a compaction zone in the roll nip between rolls E’ and F’);
wherein a device for pre-compacting the milling material, formed as a vibration device, is disposed above the compaction zone and extends to close to the compaction zone (vibration device elements M, N, N’, O, P, Q, P’, R, S’, T, U and p in Figs. 1-3 form a vibration device as disclosed on page 2, at lines 20-65);
wherein a metering slide is configured to adjust the feeding location on the roll nip and a quantity of the milling material fed onto the roll nip and is disposed within the feeder device (metering slide feed board S and inclined gate V in Fig. 2 are configured to adjust the feeding location of the roll nip and a quantity of the milling material fed onto the roll nip are disposed in feeder device hopper B; page 2, line 66-78);
wherein the metering slide forms a separate metering element within the feeder device and is movable relative to the roll nip to define the feeding location (inclined gate V in Fig. 2 is movable relative to the roll nip to define a feeding location);
wherein the vibration device is connected directly to the metering slide (vibration device elements M, N, N’, O, P, Q, P’, R, S’, T, U and p in Figs. 1-3 are directly connected to feed board S of the metering slide); and
wherein the metering slide directs a vibration energy of the vibration device into the compaction zone (feed board S of the metering slide directs vibration energy of the vibration device into the compaction zone on the roll nip between rolls E’ and F’).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson anticipates the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 10 as explained above. Thompson further discloses fin-shaped extensions which direct the vibration energy into the compaction zone are disposed on a side of the metering slide that faces the milling material. Fig. 3 shows the upper side of metering slide feed board S has fin-shaped extensions which direct the vibration energy into the compact zone. See page 2, line 58-65.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Thompson anticipates the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 10 as explained above. The remainder of claims 13 and 14 are recitation of how the apparatus is intended to be operated such that it does not differentiate the claimed apparatus of claim 10 over Thompson as explained above. See M.P.E.P. §2114, II.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,014,383 to Frazee, hereinafter “Frazee”.
Regarding claim 12, Thompson anticipates the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 11 as explained above. However, Thompson does not disclose the fin-shaped extensions on the side of the metering slide that faces the milling material, on an upward-directed side of the extensions, have a wear strip constructed from hardened steel or overlay welding.
In the same field of roll presses, Frazee teaches a roll press as shown in Fig. 1 (page 2, line 43-47) employing a feeder device as shown in Fig. 2 (page 2, line 106-129) which uses wear plate 30 on a guide plate within the feeder device at the point where material contacts the guide plate. See page 3, line 56-61.
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 strips on the corrugations of Thompson’s feed board S in the same way Frazee teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Frazee to the roll press disclosed by Thompson would achieve the predictable result of providing wear protection to Thompson’s feed board as Frazee teaches.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of European Patent Office Publication No. EP 2 488 304 B1 by Jeschinowski, hereinafter “Jeschinowski”.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson anticipates the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 10 as explained above. However, Thompson does not disclose the vibration device has a feedback-control device controlling a vibration intensity based on an energy consumption for operation, wherein an increased energy consumption results in a reduction of the vibration intensity, and a reduced energy consumption results in an increase of the vibration intensity.
In the same field of roll presses, Jeschinowski teaches high-pressure roller press 10, shown in Fig. 1, employing feed chute 12 which has vibrating bars 17, as shown in Fig. 2, directing vibration energy into compaction zone 15 between rolls 14 and 14’. See paragraphs [0020] through [0022]. Paragraph [0013] teaches a vibration intensity control loop where the vibration intensity is reduced if the energy absorption is higher than a target value and is increased if the energy absorption is lower in order to optimize the effect of the vibration device.
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 a feedback-control device to control the vibration intensity of Thompson’s vibration device in the same way Jeschinowski teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Jeschinowski to the roll press disclosed by Thompson would achieve the predictable result of using feedback control in Thompson’s vibration device to optimize its effect as Jeschinowski teaches.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art reference combination of Thompson in view of Jeschinowski renders the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 15 unpatentable as explained above. Jeschinowski further teaches the feedback-control device additionally feedback-controls based on an energy consumption of a roll drive of the two counter-rotating rolls, wherein an increased energy consumption of the roll drive results in a reduction of the vibration intensity, and a reduced energy consumption results in an increase of the vibration intensity. See paragraph [0014]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally feedback-control Thompson’s rolls E’ and F’ as Jeschinowski teaches.
Regarding claim 19, Thompson anticipates the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 10 as explained above. However, Thompson does not disclose a manual actuation device is provided for the vibration device. Paragraph [0016] of Jeschinowski teaches Jeschinowski’s vibration device may be provided with a manually triggered stop to stop the vibration device in the event of malfunction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a manually triggered stop to Thompson’s roll press as Jeschinowski teaches in order to prevent damage to the roll press during malfunction.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Jeschinowski and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0126304 A1 by Tracy et al., hereinafter “Tracy”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art reference combination of Thompson in view of Jeschinowski renders the high-pressure roll press as claimed in claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. However, neither Thompson nor Jeschinowski teach nor suggest the vibration device is additionally feedback-controlled based on the vibration intensity of the two counter-rotating rolls, wherein the vibration intensity is increased as a vibration amplitude increases or a selected linear combination of vibration frequency shares increases, and vice versa.
In the same field of roll presses, Tracy teaches use of a vibration sensor controller which controls operation of the press rolls based upon vibration levels associated with one or both of the rolls. See paragraph [0056].
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 roll press roll vibration feedback control as taught by Tracy as part of the control loop taught by Jeschinowski’s when controlling the vibration intensity of the vibration device as Jeschinowski teaches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 continues to be objected to as stated in numbered paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Non-final Rejection dated July 25, 2025.
Claim 20 is allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights