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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2027 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “The Office Action provides no articulated reasoning explaining why one of ordinary skill would have modified the fibrous-material refiner structures of Loijas to provide a stator disc screwed to a grinder upper part and axially movable for controllable grinding gap adjustment, nor does the Office Action identify any disclosure in either Loijas or Deuchars suggesting such a configuration”.
In response to this argument, this is incorrect because 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);
the only missing limitation is screwed; and
the Examiner is not required to provide a separate reason for using a screw where screws are well known in art as a conventional fastening mecahsiun; selecting a screw to attach components would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art;
Further, the particular selection of a screw as the adjustment/retention mechanism represents a predicable use of a known fastening and adjustment technique, and one having ordinary skill would have recognized that the screw provides a suitable and conventional means for achieving the desired adjustable connection.
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 Deuchars (US5383617A).
Regarding claim 1, 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 fig.1 below).
wherein the stator disc is fixed to a grinder upper part (fig.1: (18)) 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 (paragraph 0009).
Schmidt 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-2, 5-11 and 14-17 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; 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 stator disc is fixed to a grinder upper part (fig.1: (2)) 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 (paragraph 0020).
Loijas 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.
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 and 10-11; 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.
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).
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.
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 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights