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
Claims 1-31 are pending.
Claims 1, 27-29, and 31 are currently amended.
In view of the amendment, filed on 11/05/2025, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 07/29/2025.
Rejection of claims 28-29 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sommer (DE 10 2013 018 239)
Rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deiss et al. (DE 10 2013 020 316)
New Grounds of the Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “at least one flow path leads from a fixed inlet of the one or more inlets axially into the cutting chamber” which was not described in neither specification nor drawings. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement and the newly added limitation is considered as “new matter”.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer (DE 10 2013 018 239).
Examiner Note: Sommer (DE ‘239) is the prior art submitted by applicant and the following rejection relies on English Translation of this prior art attached to the instant office action.
Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses a granulating device (1 to 4) with a cutting blade head (5) for separating melt strands into granules in a granulator housing (6). A perforated plate (7) with nozzle openings (8), from which melt strands can be pressed into the granulator housing (6), protrudes into the granulator housing (6). The cutting blade head (5), which has at least one cutting blade (10) arranged radially on its outer circumference, is driven by a rotating drive shaft (9). The granulator housing (6) has a first cooling fluid inlet opening (11) and an outlet opening (12) for a granulate discharge with a mixture of cooling fluid and granules. Furthermore, the granulator housing (6) has a second cooling fluid inlet opening (13) which is independent of the first cooling fluid inlet opening (11) and has at least one co-rotating cooling nozzle bore (14) via a cooling fluid chamber (18) and a stationary cooling fluid tube (15) aligned coaxially with the drive shaft (9) is supplied in the cutting blade head (5) with a cooling fluid flow for immediate granular cooling.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
414
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
404
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
420
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to claim 1, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses an underwater pelletizer (1 to 4) comprising: a die plate (perforated plate 7 with nozzle openings 8); and a cutting chamber housing (a granulator housing 6) comprising: a cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) having two or more inlets (a first cooling fluid inlet opening 11, a second cooling fluid inlet opening 13) and one or more outlets (an outlet opening 12); a rotatably drivable cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) that is arranged in the cutting chamber (6) for dividing melt strands output from the die plate (7, 8) into pellets; flow channels and/or flow chambers (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 15) for generating different process water streams (a granulate-free inlet fluid stream 31 and cooling stream 32); and one or more annular, fixed distribution chambers (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 15); wherein the cutting chamber (18) is configured to be flushed through by process water introduced through at least one of the two or more inlets (11, 13) and is configured to be discharged from the cutting chamber (18) together with the cut pellets via at least one of the one or more outlets (12); wherein the flow channels and/or flow chambers (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 15) include: at least one co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) passing through at least one cutter head channel (14) through the cutter head (5); and at least one flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) which does not co-rotate with the cutter head (5) and which leads from a fixed inlet (a first cooling fluid inlet port 11) of the one or more inlets (11, 13) into the cutting chamber (18); wherein at least two of the two or more inlets (11, 13) are separate, one from the other, inlets (11, 13) for separately feeding the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) and the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) led into the cutting chamber (18) at a front side from an end face of the cutting chamber (18) opposite the die plate (7, 8); and wherein at least one of the one or more annular, fixed distribution chambers (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 1) has at least one outlet port opening (12) frontally to the die plate (7, 8) directly into the cutting chamber (18) for feeding the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown).
Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the structural limitations of an underwater pelletizer, as discussed above, however, is silent on explicitly disclosing at least one flow path leads from a fixed inlet of the one or more inlets axially into the cutting chamber, as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the arrangement of the at least one flow path, as disclosed by Sommer (DE ‘239), to lead axially into the cutting chamber in order to ensure reliable controlling of granule discharge current to the application of the granules from the granulator housing, and reduces the granules from the fusion ranks without the hazard of freezing of the melt in the nozzle orifices of the perforated plate.
As to claim 2, Sommer (DE ‘239) teach the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) leads onto the die plate (7, 8) outside of the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) and/or is spaced farther from a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation 33) than the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown).
As to claim 3, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) is led at least approximately parallel to a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation 33) and/or substantially perpendicular to an exit face of the die plate (7, 8) onto cutting blades (10) of the cutter head (5).
As to claim 4, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) is inclined at an acute angle to the axial direction defined by a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation 33).
As to claim 5, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the outlet port for feeding the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) opens into the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) in a diameter region larger than an outer diameter of a blade carrier of the cutter head (5).
As to claim 6, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the outlet port for feeding the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) is spaced farther from the die plate (7, 8) than an outlet port of the inlet (13) for feeding the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14).
As to claim 7, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the cutting chamber housing (a granulator housing 6) comprises two separate annular, fixed distribution chambers, a first distribution chamber that opens into the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) via the non-co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 31 is shown) and a second distribution chamber that opens into the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) via the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14).
As to claim 8, Sommer (DE ‘239) teach the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) opens through the at least one cutter head channel (14) within cutting blades (10) of the cutter head (5) into a frontal gap between the die plate (7) and the cutter head (5).
As to claim 9, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) is directed at least approximately parallel to a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation 33) and/or axially substantially perpendicular to the die plate (7, 8).
As to claim 10, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the co-rotating flow path (where the inlet fluid stream flow 32 passing through co-rotating cooling fluid bores 14) is directed at an acute angle inclined with respect to the die plate towards the die plate (7, 8).
As to claim 11, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the two separate inlets (11, 13) for separately feeding the co-rotating and non-co-rotating flow paths (31, 32) each form annular flow channels nested within one another and extending at least approximately parallel to a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation 33).
As to claim 12, Sommer (DE ‘239) teach the two separate inlets (11, 13) have discharge openings that open into the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18), the discharge openings being arranged in annular regions having diameters of different sizes.
As to claim 13, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the outlet port for directly feeding the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) past the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) has a slot-type arc-shaped curved contour and/or forms an annular outlet slot around the cutter head (5) in the end face of the cutting chamber (18).
As to claim 14, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the at least one outlet port (12) comprises a plurality of outlet ports is provided with the same or different contouring for feeding the cutting chamber (18).
As to claim 15, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) has formed therein a plurality of the cutter head channels arranged along an annular contour around a cutter head axis of rotation (33) and/or distributed centrically and/or eccentrically with respect to the cutter head axis of rotation (33) and passing through the cutter head from one end face of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) to an opposite end face of the cutter head.
As to claim 16, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the cutter head channels are aligned parallel to the cutter head axis of rotation (33) or aligned at an acute angle to the cutter head axis of rotation (33) outwardly and/or circumferentially inclined.
As to claim 17, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses at least one of the separate inlets (11, 13) has a nozzle-shaped inlet port on an outer circumferential side of the cutting chamber housing (a granulator housing 6), which is arranged tangentially to the circumferential direction and/or inclined at an acute angle to a radial direction such that process water supplied through the inlet port flows through one of the annular, fixed distribution chambers (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 15) connected to the respective separate inlet spirally and/or along a circumferential wall.
As to claim 18, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the inclination of the inlet port (11 or 13) is selected such that the process water in the annular, fixed distribution chamber (such as stationary cooling fluid tube 15) has a direction of circulation corresponding to a direction of rotation of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5).
As to claim 19, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses a fluid control and/or temperature control device for controlling and/or regulating a flow rate and/or pressure and/or temperature of the process water supplied to one of the separate inlets (11, 13) independently of the flow rate and/or pressure and/or temperature of the process water supplied to the other separate inlet.
As to claim 20, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the flow control and/or temperature control device is adapted to control and/or coordinate the process water stream at each separate inlet individually with respect to flow rate and/or pressure and/or temperature.
As to claim 21, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the cutting chamber housing (a granulator housing 6) is divided into at least one fixed housing part and at least one movable housing part, the cutting chamber housing (6) and its cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) being openable by moving the movable housing part away from the fixed housing part.
As to claim 22, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches an intersection and/or connection point between the fixed and movable housing parts extends at least predominantly in an oblique plane inclined at an acute angle to a cutter head axis of rotation.
As to claim 23, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the intersection and/or connection point between the movable and fixed housing parts in a bottom portion of the cutting chamber housing (6) is closer to the die plate (7) than to an upper end portion of the cutting chamber housing (6), the intersection and/or connection point dividing the cutting chamber (18) at the die plate (7) at the bottom portion of the cutting chamber housing (7) and dividing an annular distribution chamber for feeding the non-co-rotating flow path at the upper end portion of the cutting chamber housing (6).
As to claim 24, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the fixed housing part is fixed to the die plate and the movable housing part together with the cutter head forms a jointly movable assembly.
As to claim 25, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the outlet (12) is provided on the fixed housing part (an annular wall portion 20) and the inlets (11, 13) are provided on the movable housing part.
As to claim 26, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses at least one of the one or more outlets (12) is provided at an upper side of the cutting chamber housing (6) and the separate inlets (11, 13) are provided at a lower half of the cutting chamber housing (6).
As to claim 27, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18), viewed in a direction of circulation of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5), has a volume increasing towards the outlet (an outlet opening 12), and viewed in a circumferential direction of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5), a gap dimension between an envelope contour of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) and a circumferential wall of the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) and/or an axial cutting chamber depth increases in a direction of a cutter head axis of rotation (the axis of rotation) towards the outlet (the outlet opening 12).
As to claim 28, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses the gap dimension and/or the axial cutting chamber depth each continuously and steadily, increase toward the outlet (an outlet opening 12) and/or are minimum in a sector located immediately behind the outlet (12) as viewed in the direction of circulation of the cutter head (5) and are maximum in a sector located immediately in front of the outlet (an outlet opening 12).
As to claim 29, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches the cutter head (5) is eccentrically displaced with respect to a center of the cutting chamber (4).
As to claim 30, Sommer (DE ‘239) discloses at least one flow guide plate and/or at least one deflector in the cutting chamber (a cooling fluid chamber 18) for at least limiting multiple circulation of cut pellets.
As to claim 31, Sommer (DE ‘239) teaches at least one of the guide plates and/or deflectors in the proximity to the outlet protrudes along an envelope contour of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5) and/or is inclined at an acute angle to the envelope contour of the cutter head (a cutting blade head 5).
Claims 1-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deiss et al. (DE 10 2013 020 316)
Examiner Note: Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) is the prior art submitted by applicant and the following rejection relies on English Translation of this prior art attached to the instant office action.
Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) disclose an apparatus for the production of granules from a melt material, which comprises the following process steps. First, a melt material is prepared and extruded by pressing the melt material through nozzle openings (8) of a perforated plate (7) in a cutting chamber (10). In this case, the melt material emerging from the nozzle openings (8) of the perforated plate (7) is separated into molten granules by at least one rotating cutting blade (9) in the cutting chamber (10) passing over the nozzle openings (8). A first cooling fluid flow (11) of a first cooling fluid medium is supplied via a first cooling fluid inlet (21) to at least a first cooling fluid opening (31), with which the melt material is cooled on exit and separation at the perforated plate (7). Furthermore, a second cooling fluid stream (12) of a second of the first different cooling fluid medium via a second cooling fluid inlet (22) to at least a second cooling fluid port (32) downstream of the perforated plate (7) is supplied with the granules additionally cooled and to an outlet (15) of the cutting chamber (10) are guided. (see the abstract)
PNG
media_image5.png
424
558
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
432
548
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, as to claim 1, Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) disclose an underwater pelletizer (a granulator 4) comprising: a die plate (7); and a cutting chamber housing (wall 16) comprising: a cutting chamber (10) having two or more inlets (a first cooling fluid inlet 21, a second cooling fluid inlet 22, a third cooling fluid inlet 23) and one or more outlets (15); a rotatably drivable cutter head (a cutting knife head 19) that is arranged in the cutting chamber (10) for dividing melt strands output from the die plate (7) into pellets; flow channels and/or flow chambers (such as cooling fluid pipe pieces 26 and 27) for generating different process water streams (cooling fluid flows 11, 12, 13); and one or more annular, fixed distribution chambers (cooling fluid pipe pieces 26 and 27); wherein the cutting chamber (10) is configured to be flushed through by process water introduced through at least one of the two or more inlets (21, 22, 23) and is configured to be discharged from the cutting chamber (10) together with the cut pellets via at least one of the one or more outlets (15); wherein the flow channels and/or flow chambers (cooling fluid pipe pieces 26 and 27) include: at least one co-rotating flow path (holes 18 and cooling fluid openings 31) passing through at least one cutter head channel through the cutter head (a cutting knife head 19); and at least one flow path (a first and second cooling fluid pipe sections 26 and 27) which does not co-rotate with the cutter head (19) and which leads from a fixed inlet (a first cooling fluid inlet 21) of the one or more inlets (21, 22, 23) into the cutting chamber (10); wherein at least two of the two or more inlets (21, 22, 23) are separate, one from the other, inlets (21, 22, 23) for separately feeding the co-rotating flow path (18, 31) and the non-co-rotating flow path (26, 27) led into the cutting chamber (10) at a front side from an end face of the cutting chamber (10) opposite the die plate (7); and wherein at least one of the one or more annular, fixed distribution chambers (cooling fluid pipe pieces 26 and 27) has at least one outlet port (15) opening frontally to the die plate (7) directly into the cutting chamber (10) for feeding the non-co-rotating flow path (26, 27).
Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) discloses the structural limitations of an underwater pelletizer, as discussed above, however, is silent on explicitly disclosing at least one flow path leads from a fixed inlet of the one or more inlets axially into the cutting chamber, as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the arrangement of the at least one flow path, as disclosed by Deiss et al. (DE ‘316), to lead axially into the cutting chamber in order to ensure independent discharge of the granules from the granulator, thus preventing excessive flow of the cooling fluid medium to the cutting blade head, and preventing the risk of freezing of the molten material in the nozzle openings of the perforated plate, prevents sticking or clumping of the granules on the walls and on the knife while cutting.
Claims 2-31 are also disclosed by Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) for the similar reasons provided above in discussing the rejections of the claims over the prior art of Sommer (DE ‘239).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 11/05/2025, with respect to previous anticipation rejection of claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections. The arguments are mainly directed to the newly added limitation of “at least one flow path leads from a fixed inlet of the one or more inlets axially into the cutting chamber” and that neither Sommer (DE ‘239) nor Deiss et al. (DE ‘316) disclose this claimed subject matter. However, as it has been discussed in the above new grounds of the rejections, such structural limitation is considered to be an obvious rearrangement of at least one flow path in relevant to the cutting chamber. Therefore, the arguments are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of rejections of the claims over the prior art rejection, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Freese et al. (US 2022/0332017) disclose an underwater granulation system, comprising: a water box, a perforated plate with multiple through-openings for feeding polymer melt into the water box, a cutting plate support which is arranged in the water box so as to be driven in rotation about an axis of rotation (X) in a cutting direction, wherein the cutting plate support has multiple cutting plates which face the perforated plate and are adapted to separate particles from the polymer melt entering through the perforated plate, wherein the water box is connected to a water supply for heat evacuation and for evacuating separated particles from the water box, and wherein the water box has a hollow cylindrical portion relative to the axis of rotation (X), in which multiple water inlets distributed over a circumference of the water box and multiple water outlets distributed over the circumference of the water box are arranged.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 12/20/2025
Prosecution Insights