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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior arts of Schmidt and Lionel do not disclose the limitation of “adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions are separated by a mixing zone peripheral groove”.
In response to this argument, claim 1 does not required the limitation of “adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions are separated by a mixing zone peripheral groove”;
Further, even if claim 1 is required the limitation of “adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions are separated by a mixing zone peripheral groove”; the devices of the prior arts of Schmidt and Lionel still having an action of mixing.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “In Schmidt, the tooth geometry is continuous across the active grinding zone and is expressly designed to provide a uniform shearing action; Introducing discontinuities such as annular mixing-zone grooves would defeat that objective and interrupt the progressive shear and compression forces upon which Schmidt's performance depends. The structures and operating principles of Schmidt and Sutherland are incompatible: Schmidt's narrowing annular gap and continuous shearing path depend on uninterrupted surface engagement between the discs, while Sutherland's stepped, staged plates intentionally interrupt that path with large transition grooves to discharge coarse material to a subsequent grinding stage. Adapting Sutherland's concentric multi-stage arrangement to Schmidt's continuous converging disc geometry would require a fundamental redesign of the discs' working faces, flow channels, and pressure profile, with no assurance of operability or performance benefit. the Examiner's invocation of KSR v. Teleflex is misplaced. KSR recognizes that combining familiar elements is obvious only when the combination yields predictable results. Here, the proposed combination would fundamentally alter the working principle of Schmidt's device, so the outcome would be unpredictable and unsupported by the cited references”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., achieving controlled shear) are 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);
Further, the Applicant argument is conclusory statement because there is nothing in the prior art of Schmidt regrading “shearing action”;
The Applicant must use the written specification of the cited prior arts to support the Applicant’s argument.
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (DE10203752C1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Lionel (US2654295A).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Schmidt discloses a disc grinding device comprising:
a stator disc (fig.1: (14)) and a rotor disc (fig.1: (16)) (paragraphs 0008-0009 and 0019-0025),
wherein the stator disc (fig.1: (14)) and the rotor disc (fig.1: (16)) are disposed coaxially with respect to a common disc axis, the stator disc having at least approximately a same diameter as a diameter of the rotor disc (fig.1), and
the stator disc having a side of which contains an annular toothed stator surface, the rotor disc having a side of which contains an annular toothed rotor surface, and the side of the stator disc and the side of the rotor disc mutually facing each other (figs.1-6),
wherein the annular toothed stator surface contains at least one stator ring region with stator teeth, the stator teeth spaced apart by stator grooves in a peripheral direction, and the annular toothed rotor surface contains at least one rotor ring region with rotor teeth (figs.1-6),
the rotor teeth spaced apart by rotor grooves in the peripheral direction, wherein the toothed rotor surface and the toothed stator surface define an annular grinding gap (fig.1: the gap between elements (14) and (16)), and the toothed rotor surface and the toothed stator surface are disposed and formed in such a way that the annular grinding gap becomes narrower radially in a direction from a disc axis towards an edge of each of the stator disc and rotor disc (see
PNG
media_image1.png
558
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fig.1 below).
Schmidt does not disclose wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc; wherein at least two stator ring regions with stator teeth and/or rotor ring regions with rotor teeth lie adjacently in the radial direction of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively and have stator teeth or rotor teeth respectively and/or stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively of different designs, wherein
- such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions are separated by a mixing zone peripheral groove, and/or
- in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto.
Deuchars discloses a disc grinding device (abstract and col.4-col.7), comprising:
wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc (fig.4); and
wherein at least two stator ring regions with stator teeth and/or rotor ring regions with rotor teeth lie adjacently in the radial direction of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively and have stator teeth or rotor teeth respectively and/or stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively of different designs (fig.4), wherein
- in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto (fig.4);
Both of the prior arts of Schmidt and Deuchars are related to a disc grinding device:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor and the stator of the apparatus of Schmidt to have the configuration of the regions as taught by Deuchars; since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc; wherein at least two stator ring regions with stator teeth and/or rotor ring regions with rotor teeth lie adjacently in the radial direction of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively and have stator teeth or rotor teeth respectively and/or stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively of different designs, wherein in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto.
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt discloses wherein the stator grooves and/or the rotor grooves have a conical shape between the teeth thereof (fig.4).
Therefore, the modification of Schmidt in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Claims 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loijas (US20230183921A1) in view of Deuchars (US5383617A).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8 and 10-11 and 13, Loijas discloses a disc grinding device (abstract; figs.1-3; paragraphs 0017-0034) comprising:
a stator disc (fig.1: (3)) and a rotor disc (fig.1: (6)), wherein the stator disc and the rotor disc are disposed coaxially with respect to a common disc axis,
the stator disc (3) having at least approximately a same diameter as a diameter of the rotor disc (fig.1), and
the stator disc having a side of which contains an annular toothed stator surface (fig.1: (5)), the rotor disc having a side of which contains an annular toothed rotor surface (fig.1: (9)), and the side of the stator disc and the side of the rotor disc mutually facing each other (figs.1-3),
wherein the annular toothed stator surface contains at least one stator ring region (fig.2: (24)) with stator teeth (fig.2: (16)), the stator teeth spaced apart by stator grooves (figs.2-3: (23)) in a peripheral direction, and the annular toothed rotor surface contains at least one rotor ring region (fig.2: (24)) with rotor teeth (fig.2: (16)), the rotor teeth are spaced apart by rotor grooves (figs.2-3: (23)) in the peripheral direction, wherein the toothed rotor surface and the toothed stator surface define an annular grinding gap (fig.1: (12)) , and the toothed rotor surface and the toothed stator surface are disposed and formed in such a way that the annular grinding gap becomes narrower radially in a direction from a disc axis towards an edge of each of the stator disc and rotor disc (fig.1);
wherein at least two stator ring regions with stator teeth and/or rotor ring regions with rotor teeth lie adjacently in the radial direction of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively and have stator teeth or rotor teeth respectively and/or stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively of different designs (fig.2-3), wherein:
- such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions are separated by a mixing zone peripheral groove (figs.2-3: (23)); and
wherein the grinding gap becomes wider in an edge region of the stator disc and rotor disc (fig.1: (12)); and
wherein, over a whole grinding zone, the tooth arrangement is divided into different toothed circles (fig.2: (24)).
Regarding claims 1, 10-11 and 13; Loijas does not discloses wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc; and
- in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto;
wherein the tooth arrangement is divided into different toothed circles and wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles; wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles; and wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower towards an outer diameter of the stator disc and rotor disc.
Deuchars discloses a disc grinding device (abstract and col.4-col.7), comprising:
wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc (fig.4); and
- in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto (fig.4);
wherein the tooth arrangement is divided into different toothed circles and wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles (fig.4); wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles (fig.4); and wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower towards an outer diameter of the stator disc and rotor disc (fig.4).
Both of the prior arts of Loijas and Deuchars are related to a disc grinding device:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rotor and the stator grooves of the apparatus of Loijas to have the configuration of the grooves as taught by Deuchars; since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc or rotor disc respectively so that a respective tooth arrangement of the stator disc and the rotor disc each becomes narrower radially from the disc axis towards the edge of the respective stator disc and rotor disc; and - in such adjacent stator ring regions and/or rotor ring regions in a stator ring region or rotor ring region respectively lying radially further outwards in the direction from the disc axis towards the edge of the stator disc and rotor disc, the stator grooves or rotor grooves respectively are narrower than in the stator ring region and/or the rotor ring region lying adjacently further inwards radially thereto; wherein the tooth arrangement is divided into different toothed circles and wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles; wherein the tooth arrangement becomes finer from an inside to an outside with each of the toothed circles; and wherein the stator grooves and/or rotor grooves become narrower towards an outer diameter of the stator disc and rotor disc.
Regarding claim 2, Loijas in view of Deuchars does not disclose wherein the rotor disc rotates during operation at a speed of approximately 1000 to 4000 rpm in an adjustable or controllable manner.
However; choosing the speed of the rotor in an adjustable or controllable manner is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinding process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the speed of the rotor as desired, including wherein the rotor disc rotates during operation at a speed of approximately 1000 to 4000 rpm in an adjustable or controllable manner in order to meet specific requirements of the grinding process as desired; as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claims 3-4, Loijas discloses wherein the stator disc is fixed to a grinder upper part and is advantageously displaceable axially along the disc axis, whereby a size of the annular grinding gap in an axial direction between the stator disc and rotor disc is adjustable or controllable (paragraphs 0009 and 0025).
Loijas in view of Deuchars does not explicitly disclose wherein the stator disc is screwed to a grinder upper part;
However; choosing the type of fixing means is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the fixing means of the stator as desired, including the stator disc is screwed to a grinder upper part in order to meet the general design of the grinder as desired; as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Loijas disclose wherein a grinding gap between the stator disc and rotor disc is adjustable or controllable (paragraph 0020).
Loijas in view of Deuchars does not disclose wherein a grinding gap between the stator disc and rotor disc at the narrowest point is approximately 0.3 to approximately 3 mm;
However; choosing the size of grinding gap is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinding process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the size of grinding gap as desired, including wherein a grinding gap between the stator disc and rotor disc, in particular at the narrowest point, is approximately 0.3 to approximately 3 mm in order to meet specific requirements of the grinding process as desired; as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Loijas discloses wherein the toothed stator surface and the toothed rotor surface are disposed and/or formed in such a way that the grinding gap becomes wider in an edge region of the stator disc and rotor disc (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Loijas discloses wherein the grinding gap becomes wider in an edge region of the stator disc and rotor disc (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claims 9, Loijas discloses wherein a coarse tooth arrangement in a region adjoining an inner diameter on an innermost stator ring region and/or rotor ring region forms a pre-grinding zone fig.2: (see the bottom tooth at element (CD)).
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Loijas in view of Deuchars does not disclose wherein a groove width is at least approximately 1.5 to 3.5 times larger than a groove depth from the annular toothed stator surface and/or the annular toothed rotor surface.
However, choosing the dimensions of the tooth is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design of the grinder and specific requirements of the grinding process as desired;
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the dimensions of the tooth as desired, including wherein a groove width is at least approximately 1.5 to 3.5 times larger than a groove depth from the annular toothed stator surface and/or the annular toothed rotor surface in order to meet specific requirements of the grinding process as desired; as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 15, Loijas discloses wherein each of the toothed circles is subdivided with an annular groove which constitutes the mixing zone peripheral groove (fig.2: (23)).
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Loijas discloses a grinder (fig.1) having a disc grinding device as claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Loijas discloses wherein the rotor teeth and rotor grooves extend in an inclined or curved manner with respect to the radial direction of the rotor disc and in combination therewith the stator teeth and stator grooves extend pointing in the radial direction of the stator disc (figs.2-3)
Therefore, the modification of Loijas in view of Deuchars teaches the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725