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
Upon consideration of the amended claims, all previous objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) thereto are hereby withdrawn, except for those discussed below. Additionally, the amended claim language has introduced new claim objections, which are discussed below.
No amended abstract or specification has been provided with the response, so the objections thereto outlined in the Office action mailed 12/12/2025 are hereby maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the Remarks that Schrader does not disclose a two-roll mill as required by Claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 as currently set forth recites “providing a two-roller mill having two rotationally driven grinding rollers having respective outer surfaces provided with profilings and together forming a nip”. Schrader discloses a set of two granulating rolls (col. 4 lns 21-22: “one roll” and “the other” implies the set has two rolls) having outer surfaces with longitudinal and circumferential serrations, i.e. profilings. The Applicant appears to be interpreting the term “serrations” to be describing teeth or other crushing elements, but there is nothing in Schrader which supports this interpretation. The definition of “serration” according to Merriam-Webster is “a formation resembling the toothed edge of a saw”, which, in the context of a granulating roller, would translate to a series of sharp ridges and grooves having a zig-zag cross section extending either longitudinally along the roller or circumferentially around the roller. The serrations therefore would have a structure equivalent to the corrugations recited in Claim 9 and thus is considered to be a “profiling”.
The Applicant further argues “in a two-roll mill, comminution takes place between the outer surfaces…in such a way that there is no specific effect of individual comminution elements on the particles to be comminuted.” However, it is noted that the latter part of that argument (i.e. “no specific effect of individual comminution elements on the particles to be comminuted”) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 as currently set forth recites “feeding the flake or flake particles to the nip of the two-roller mill and thereby crush-comminuting them in the nip”. Examiner notes that the term “crushing” is often used as a generic term to describe a comminuting process and is not exclusive to any one type of comminuting apparatus; accordingly, the term “crush-comminuting” in the amended Claim 1 does not preclude the function of Schrader’s granulating rollers, i.e. the flakes being “chewed into bits”, from reading on this limitation.
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of Xu is therefore maintained.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 12 line 5, “?Structurally” should read “Structurally”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in Claim 1 line 14, the word “simultaneously” should be omitted, as this is redundant from line 11; in Claim 6 line 2, “wherein further comprising” should read “further comprising”, and in lines 3-4 “heating the flake or the flake particles a temperature” should read “heating the flake or flake particles to a temperature”; in Claim 12 line 5, “the flake starting material” should read “the flake as starting material”; and in Claim 15 lines 4-5, “circulating material emerging from the two-roller mill is fed back to the classifier” should read “circulating material emerging from the two-roller mill . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8-9 are 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.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “the roller gap” does not have antecedent basis in the claim. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the recited roller gap is meant to reference the nip formed between the grinding rollers recited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, the scope of the limitation “the outer surfaces of the grinding rollers have corrugations formed by a multiplicity of grooves and ridges” is unclear. Claim 1, from which Claim 9 depends, recites that the grinding rollers have “outer surfaces provided with profilings” in lines 6-7; are the corrugations recited in Claim 9 meant to further define the profilings of Claim 1, i.e. by providing structural limitations, or are they meant to be separate, additional features? For examination purposes the former interpretation will be used.
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 1-6, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader et al., hereinafter Schrader (US 3,135,473) in view of Xu et al., hereinafter Xu (CN 110773303). For text citations of Xu, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 1, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) a method of comminuting fertilizer flake or flake particles (col. 1 lns 11-13, 30-31), the method comprising the steps of: providing a two-roller mill (col. 4 lns 17-19, 22-24: the second set of granulating rolls 24 is interpreted as the two-roller mill) having two rotationally driven grinding rollers having respective outer surfaces provided with profilings (col. 4 lns 19-24: the serrations on granulating rolls 24 are interpreted as profilings) and together forming a nip (col. 4 lns 17-24: each set of granulating rollers 24 contains two rolls, which will inherently have a gap, i.e. a nip, formed between them), and feeding the flake or flake particles to the nip of the the two-roller mill and thereby crush-comminuting them in the nip (col. 4 lns 25-27).
Schrader is silent to the peripheral speed(s) of the grinding rollers of the two-roller mill. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the claimed peripheral speed(s) that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Schrader such that the grinding rollers rotate at a peripheral speed or with peripheral speeds of more than 5 m/s, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Further regarding Claim 1, Schrader does not disclose cooling the outer surfaces of the grinding rollers simultaneously with rotating them. In the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches (Figures 2 and 4-5) a method of comminuting fertilizer flake or flake particles ([0002] lns 1-3), the method comprising the steps of: providing a two-roller mill (crushing device 3) having two rotationally driven grinding rollers (crushing rollers 32) having respective outer surfaces provided with profilings (clearly seen in Figure 5), and simultaneously rotating the grinding rollers and cooling outer surfaces of the grinding rollers ([0028] lns 12-16). Cooling the outer surfaces of the grinding rollers is beneficial because it helps avoid deformation problems caused by thermal expansion and contraction ([0014] lns 4-6), such as a shrinking gap between the rollers which results in smaller fertilizer particles and jamming of the rollers ([0004] lns 8-11). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of comminuting fertilizer flake or flake particles disclosed by Schrader such that it also includes cooling the outer surfaces of the grinding rollers simultaneously to them rotating, as taught by Xu, in order to prevent problems caused by deformation due to thermal expansion and contraction of the grinding rollers.
Regarding Claim 2, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Schrader and Xu, Xu teaches (Figures 4-5) the roller surfaces (surfaces of crushing rollers 32) are cooled internally by cooling systems (coolant inlet/outlet pipes 331/332) integrated in the rollers ([0028] lns 5-15 describes the internal cooling configuration).
Regarding Claim 3, with reference to the aforementioned combination of Schrader and Xu, Xu teaches (Figures 4-5) the cooling systems are liquid cooling systems that have one or more cooling passages (coolant inlet/outlet pipes 331/332) in the rollers (crushing rollers 32) for a liquid cooling medium ([0028] lns 5-15 describes the liquid cooling configuration).
Regarding Claim 4, Schrader is silent to the peripheral speeds of the grinding rollers of the two-roller mill. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the claimed range of peripheral speed(s) that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Schrader such that the grinding rollers rotate at peripheral speeds of 5 to 25 m/s, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Regarding Claim 5, Schrader is silent to the diameters and rotational speed(s) of the grinding rollers of the two-roller mill. However, as the Applicant states in the specification that the claimed diameter range is known in the art (pg. 6 lns 11-13) and has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the claimed range of rotational speed(s) that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Schrader such that the grinding rollers have diameters of 200 mm to 1000 mm and/or rotate at a rotational speed or rotational speeds of 80 to 2400 rpm, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Regarding Claim 6, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) heating the flake or flake particles to a temperature of at least 100˚C prior to feeding them into the nip (col. 3 lns 45-48: the starting material enters the fertilizer manufacturing apparatus, which includes the granulating rolls 24, i.e. the two-roller mill, at about 340˚F, which is equivalent to about 171˚C).
Regarding Claim 8, Schrader is silent to the gap width of the roller gap in the two-roller mill. However, as the Applicant has not set forth any criticality to the selection of the claimed range of gap widths that results in an unexpected benefit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Schrader such that the roller gap is set to a gap width of 0.5 to 10 mm, because such selection or determination would be the result of routine mechanical optimization and does not in itself warrant patentability, as one would arrive at such optimization through routine engineering practices.
Regarding Claim 9, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) the outer surfaces of the grinding rollers (second set of granulating rollers 24) have corrugations formed by a multiplicity of grooves and ridges that extend over a full width of the rollers and are oriented parallel or obliquely to a roller axis or spirally or arcuately (col. 4 lns 19-21: the serrations are interpreted as corrugations formed by grooves and ridges; one roller has longitudinal serrations, i.e. parallel corrugations).
Regarding Claim 10, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) the flake or the flake particles are fed into the nip as a curtain of loose and scattered material (col. 4 lns 13-15: the flake or flake particles are fed directly from the screen 22 to the granulating rolls 24 without being pressurized, i.e. as a curtain of loose and scattered material).
Regarding Claim 12, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) precompacting inorganic substances in a roller press to form the flake as starting material (col. 3 lns 1-10: the compactor comprising two rolls is interpreted as a roller press; col. 4 lns 13-14: the compacted material produced by the compactor is interpreted as flake), that is then fed to the two-roller mill (col. 4 lns 13-16, 25-27: oversized flake particles are fed to the first and second sets of granulating rolls 24).
Regarding Claim 13, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) precomminuting the flake with a roller crusher and/or a hammer mill, to form the flake particles that are fed to the two-roller mill (col. 4 lns 17-27: the first set of granulating rolls 24 forms a roller crusher for precomminuting the flake into flake particles, and the second set of granulating rolls 24 placed directly below the first set is interpreted as the two-roller mill).
Regarding Claim 14, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) providing a classifier (screen 22) between the precomminutor (first set of granulating rolls 24) and the two-roller mill (second set of granulating rolls 24) and/or downstream of the two-roller mill (col. 4 lns 15-16: the flake particles are classified downstream of granulating rolls 24 in screen 22).
Examiner note: due to the use of the phrase “and/or”, classification of the flake particles between the precomminutor and the two-roller mill is not necessary to meet the requirements of the claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Schrader discloses (Figure 1) circulating material emerging from the two-roller mill (second set of granulating rolls 24) back to the classifier (screen 22; col. 4 lns 14-16, recirculation is clearly shown in figure).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schrader in view of Xu as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Bergendahl (US 4,439,384, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 7, Schrader as modified by Xu is silent to the temperatures of the roller surfaces of the grinding rollers. In the same field of endeavor, Bergendahl teaches (Figures 1-2) a method of making fertilizer granules (col. 1 lns 45-46) in which the outer surfaces of rollers (roll shells 30 of rolls 9a/9b) used in the method are cooled during operation (col. 2 lns 47-49), wherein the rollers are cooled such that temperatures of the roller surfaces do not exceed 100˚C (col. 1 lns 56-59). This temperature of the roller surfaces ensures that the fertilizer salt material, which is the same material (potassium chloride) as used in the method disclosed by Schrader, does not melt on the surfaces of the rollers as it is being processed (col. 4 lns 38-41). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method disclosed by Schrader and modified by Xu such that the grinding rollers are cooled such that temperatures of the roller surfaces do not exceed 100˚C, as taught by Bergendahl, to avoid the fertilizer salt material melting on the surfaces of the grinding rollers.
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 TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725