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 .
Claims 1, 2, 7-12, 14-19, and 23 have been elected by the applicants and have been examined.
Claims 29, 31, 35, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 29, 31, 35, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/20/2025. Wherein, the restriction was based upon the lack of unity between the inventive groups as presented in the restriction requirement on 4/21/2025.
The applicants have argued that there would not increase the search burden on the examiner. This argument is strongly disagreed by the Examiner, furthermore this search burden argument is not persuasive over the lack of unity between the inventive groups in regards to the requirement for unity of invention under 37 CFR 1.475.
Whereby, in light of the consideration and arguments, the restriction requirement is FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 23 is 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.
Wherein, claim 23 is dependent upon canceled claim 4, and is thus rejected as being incomplete, see MPEP 608.01(n)(V).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MEYER (US 2988781 A).
Re 1, MEYER teaches of a method of forming a plurality of pellets from a plurality of agglomerate granules (see Figs. 1 and 2), comprising the steps of:
(a) feeding the plurality of agglomerate granules on to an operative surface of an assembly of rollers (4), the rollers having been aligned to have parallel central rotational axes and spaced apart from one another so that there is a longitudinal gap between adjacent rollers, wherein the width of the longitudinal gap is smaller than a size of the pellets (Fig. 1);
(b) rotating the rollers to agitate and abrade the agglomerate granules on the exterior operative surface of the assembly of rollers and form substantially rounded pellets (Fig. 4, and see also driving motor and chain that engaging the rollers, see Col. 1, lines 52-73, see Col. 2, lines 27-41, wherein the pellets P are made more round)
(c) discharging the pellets from the rollers (Fig. 2, and Col. 2, line 72 to Col. 3, line 3).
Further, MEYER teaches of the motor 8 can be of variable speed, see Col. 1, lines 60-73, driven in the same direction. The conveyor can be horizontal or may be somewhat tilted in either direction from one end toward another. In the direction of the width, the axis of each roller is horizontal.
Re 8 (upon 1), wherein the assembly is a planar assembly in which the rollers are arranged in a linear planar format (see Fig. 1 of MEYER).
Re 9 (upon 8), wherein the planar assembly is angled relative to a horizontal surface that supports the planar assembly, the rollers having first and second end portions, the second end portions being positioned vertically closer to the horizontal surface than the first end portions, and wherein the agglomerate granules are fed onto the operative surface at the first end portions of the rollers, conveyed along the operative surface in the longitudinal direction and discharged near the second end portions of the rollers (see teaching by MEYERS of the rollers 4, and in Fig. 1).
Re 12 (upon 1), wherein the rollers are operated at the same rotational rate, or the rollers are all operated at a first rotational rate for a first period of time, and are thereafter all operated at a second rotational rate for a second period of time, the second rotational rate being higher than the first rotational rate (see teaching in MEYER of the motor 8 can be of variable speed, see Col. 1, lines 60-73, driven in the same direction, and of the same speed and further of variable speed drive mechanism so that the rollers can be driven at an optimum speed).
Re 17 (upon 1), wherein the assembly is a planar assembly (see Figs. 1 and 2) disposed within an enclosed housing (see elongated supporting frame 2) to prevent spillage of agitated agglomerate granules from operative surfaces of the rollers.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LEONHARDT (US 4316543 A).
Re 2 (upon 1), wherein the agglomerate granules are irregularly shaped compacted mineral containing granules, and the pellets are mineral containing substantially rounded pellets. Wherein, LEONHARDT pertains to a sieving roller conveyor for pellets from ore, and see pellets 13 that are rounded, see Fig. 2, Col. 1, lines 53-69.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MEYER with the rounding for the pellets as taught by LEONHARDT as seen under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The claimed portion of “wherein optionally the substantially rounded pellets are substantially spherical pellets having a diameter of from about 0.5 mm to about 5.0 mm, or substantially geometrically spheroidal pellets having a semi-major axis and a semi-minor axis, being non equal in length, and ranging from about 0.5 mm to about 5.0 mm in length” are seen as optional limitations and are features that are not required for the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYER in view of LEONHARDT as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of MATSUMOTO (US 2015/0240013 A1).
Re 7 (upon 2), MEYER does not specifically teach of “wherein the width of the longitudinal gap between the adjacent rollers is from about 4 mm to about 0.25 mm, or from about 2.5 mm to about 0.25 mm less than the size of the diameter of the substantially spherical pellets or the semi-minor axis of the substantially geometrically spheroidal pellets.”
However, see in MATSUMOTO roll mill with roll gaps [0266, 0312] of .083 mm, 0.45 mm, 0.24 mm, 1 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.5 mm, the different sizing for pulverizing the polymers to the desired sizes are known.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MEYER with the additional width between the rollers as taught by MATSUMOTO as achieving the desired sizing of the pellets.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HUGHES (US 4366928 A).
Re 10 (upon 1), MEYER does not teach of wherein the assembly is a tubular assembly formed by a circular arrangement of rollers where the rollers are arranged so that there is an approximately tubularly shaped space at a center of the assembly of rollers, the approximately tubularly shaped space having first and second tubular spatial end portions and a central tubular axis that is parallel to central rotational axes of the rollers, wherein the agglomerate granules are received by the first or second tubular spatial end portion.
In this regard, of a tubular assembly with a circular arrangement of rollers, see in HUGHES regarding the particular arrangement of the comminuting rollers that re arranged within a tubular enclosure, see Fig. 1. See also Fig. 3 of the circular arrangement of the rollers. Such arrangement of the rollers is known in engaging materials orbitally, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the roller arrangement MEYER with that of HUGHES as an alternative known arrangement, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, particularly in the arrangement of the rollers.
Re 11 (upon 10), wherein the assembly of rollers are arranged so that the central tubular axis is angled relative to a horizontal surface that supports the tubular assembly so that the first tubular spatial end portion is vertically positioned higher relative to the horizontal surface than the second tubular spatial end portion, wherein the agglomerate granules are fed into the first tubular spatial end portion, conveyed longitudinally through the tubular space, and discharged at the second tubular spatial end portion.
In this regard, MEYER teaches in Col. 1, lines 60-73, driven in the same direction and that the conveyor can be horizontal or may be somewhat tilted in either direction from one end toward another. In the direction of the width, the axis of each roller is horizontal. Thus, the combination of MEYER in view of HUGHES along with the tilt modification in MEYER further allows for a tilted axis of the tubular axis as a known orientation of the rollers.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VAANANEN (US 6253927 B1).
Re 14 (upon 1), MEYER teaches of wherein the agglomerate granules are fed on a roller assembly comprising a plurality of roller arrangements that are sequentially ordered, each roller arrangement having multiple rollers, and each roller arrangement is disposed in a linear, wherein the rollers in each roller arrangement are operated at the same rotational rate,
MEYER does not teach of the further, “and wherein starting with a first roller arrangement, the rollers in each subsequent roller arrangement, are operated at an incrementally higher rotational rate, and wherein the agglomerate granules are fed to a first roller arrangement, conveyed along subsequent roller arrangements and discharged from a final roller arrangement”.
However, in a related field of endeavor, the VAANANEN reference teaches of a roller screen and includes the rollers that are each rotated via separate rotation motor, and further of the path, the successive roller parts having a desired speed with speed of rotation increasing in the proceeding direction of the material towards the final end of the roller screen, the spaces between the rollers being adjustable, see claim 1 of VAANANEN, particularly of the speed of rotation by roller group, see Col. 1, lines 44-52, the roller group corresponding the claimed roller arrangements. The concept of roller sections that having successive higher rotational rate is known in the roller arts, particularly for screening accuracy to improve, see Col. 2, lines 14-20.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify MEYER with the roller arrangements with increasing rotational speed as taught by VAANANEN for providing increased screening accuracy of the agglomerates and pellets along the rollers.
Re 15 (upon 14), wherein each arrangement is a linear planar arrangement, wherein the central axes of the rollers in at least one roller arrangement extend co-linearly to the central axes of the rollers of at least one other roller arrangement (see roller arrangements in the Figs of both MEYER and VAANANEN).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER in view of VAANANEN as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JAKOBS (US 5261324 A).
Re 16 (upon 14), wherein the arrangement is a linear planar arrangement, wherein the central axes of the rollers in at least one roller arrangement extend in parallel with the central axes of the rollers of at least one other roller arrangement, wherein the central axes of the at least one roller arrangement are axially offset from the central axes of the at least one other roller arrangement.
In this regard, MEYER teaches in Col. 1, lines 60-73, driven in the same direction and that the conveyor can be horizontal or may be somewhat tilted in either direction from one end toward another. In the direction of the width, the axis of each roller is horizontal. However, MAYER does not teach of one roller arrangement axially offset from at least one other roller arrangement.
In this regard, JAKOBS teaches of rollers that include bearings that allow for tilting, see abstract. This translates for axial offset between the axes of the adjacent rollers, wherein such a concept allows for adjustment for accommodating changes in the nip between adjacent rollers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the roller arrangements of the modified MEYER with the bearing for the adjustment in the axis of the roller as taught by JAKOBS for the accommodating changes in the nip between adjacent rollers.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KREFT (US 6834764 B2).
Re 18 (upon 1), MEYER does not specifically teach of wherein the rollers have a length in the range of about 50 cm to about 4 m.
KREFT teaches in the roller arts of different length of the rollers 40, that include 12 inches, to 72 inches, to 96 inches, and a variety of sizes that can be maintained, see Col. 8, lines 21-33. Which corresponds from 0.3 meters (or 30.4 cm), 1.82 meters (or 182.8 cm), 2.43 meters (or 243.84 cm), and thus would be within the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rollers of MEYERS with the length as taught by KREFT as known size of rollers used in the systems, seen under KSR rationale, MPEP2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BRION (US 2016/0235093 A1).
Re 19 (upon 1), MEYER does not specifically teach of wherein the method comprises heating the agglomerate granules at a temperature from about 30 C to about 300 C before feeding the agglomerate granules onto an operative surface of the assembly of rollers.
In this regard, BRION teaches of known formation of pellets having salt and potassium chloride, see [0050], and wherein, such pellets are formed via disc pelletizer, dried, and then screened, see [0088]. Wherein, the drying is at 100 C, which corresponds to the claimed heating.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MEYER with the heating as taught by BRION in allowing for drying of the pellets prior to the screen, which would correspond to the roller step of MEYER.
Re 23 (upon 4, assumed to be claim 1), MEYER does not specifically teach of wherein the mineral contained in the plurality of irregularly shaped compacted mineral containing granules is a potassium containing water soluble salt or a phosphate containing water soluble salt.
Further, the claim having “, wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a single salt, wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a single salt, wherein optionally the single salt is selected from KCI, K2SO4 and KNO3, or wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a multiple salt or wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a multiple salt selected from K2SO4-MgSO4-(CaSO4)2-2H20, K2SO4(MgSO4)2, K2SO4-MgSO4-4H20, K2SO4-MgSO4-6H20, and KCI-MgSO4-2.75H20.” (Which are seen as optional limitations.)
Wherein, BRION teaches of known formation of pellets having salt and potassium chloride, see [0050], and wherein, such pellets are formed via disc pelletizer, dried, and then screened, see [0088]. In this regard, the particular material of the claimed formed pellet is known in art as seen in BRION.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MEYER with the mineral having the claimed composition as taught by BRION in forming the desired pellets, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER in view of LEONHARDT as applied to claim 4 (assumed to be claim 2) above, and further in view of BRION (US 2016/0235093 A1).
Re 23 (upon 4, assumed to be claim 2), MEYER does not specifically teach of wherein the mineral contained in the plurality of irregularly shaped compacted mineral containing granules is a potassium containing water soluble salt or a phosphate containing water soluble salt.
Further, the claim having “, wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a single salt, wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a single salt, wherein optionally the single salt is selected from KCI, K2SO4 and KNO3, or wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a multiple salt or wherein optionally the potassium containing salt is a multiple salt selected from K2SO4-MgSO4-(CaSO4)2-2H20, K2SO4(MgSO4)2, K2SO4-MgSO4-4H20, K2SO4-MgSO4-6H20, and KCI-MgSO4-2.75H20.” (Which are seen as optional limitations.)
Wherein, BRION teaches of known formation of pellets having salt and potassium chloride, see [0050], and wherein, such pellets are formed via disc pelletizer, dried, and then screened, see [0088]. In this regard, the particular material of the claimed formed pellet is known in art as seen in BRION.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified MEYER with the mineral having the claimed composition as taught by BRION in forming the desired pellets, see KSR rationale, MPEP 2143, as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights