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, 7-11, 15-19, and 23 have been elected by the applicants and have been examined.
Claims 29, 31, 35, 38, and 40 are withdrawn from examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see latest amendment, filed 8/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive, primarily with how the rejection was originally presented. In regards to the argument with the roller arrangement limitation, the Examiner agrees that the previous office action did not clearly explain and address the features concerning the multiple rollers for each roller arrangement.
Whereby, the previous rejection has been withdrawn, however the claims have been rejected with the additional inclusion of the LEONHARDT teaching the claimed roller arrangements. The LEONHARDT reference was used in the rejection for dependent claim 2, but it was not used for the roller arrangement features which was previously in dependent claim 14, in which those features have now been incorporated into claim 1. The current rejection below now addresses the deficiencies using the reference of LEONHARDT which teaches the concepts of sieving conveyors, and all examined claims have been rejected. The LEONHARDT teachings being relevant to the MEYER reference as both are directed to conveyance of green pellets.
The arguments further discuss about the combination of MEYER with VAANANEN, in which the pellet conveying of MEYER should not be combined with the VAANANEN teaching of roller screens. While the comparison between the references are noted, the rejections now include the teachings of the LEONHARDT reference that is directed to the concept of sieving conveyance that ties into the teaching of MEYER and thus in turn allows one skilled in the art to further recognize and incorporate features of the sieving rollers of VAANANEN.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MEYER (US 2988781 A) in view of LEONHARDT (US 4316543 A) and VAANANEN (US 6253927 B1).
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. 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). Additionally, MEYER teaches of wherein the agglomerate granules are fed on a roller assembly comprising a plurality of rollers that are sequentially ordered, each roller is disposed in a linear, wherein the rollers are operated at the same rotational rate.
MEYER does not teach of the multiple rollers for each of the roller arrangement, 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”.
Regarding the plurality of roller arrangements, each roller arrangement having multiple rollers, and the roller arrangement is disposed in a linear arrangement, see teaching in LEONHARDT with a sieving roller conveyor for pellets from ore, and see pellets 13 that are rounded, see Fig. 2, Col. 1, lines 53-69. As seen in Figs 1 and 2, the rollers are in arrangements 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d that comprises of multiple rollers, see 4, 4’ (pairs of rollers), and in which the individual roller arrangements 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d are operated by individual clutches 12, see Fig. 1 specifically. The LEONHARDT reference being relevant to the MEYER reference as both are directed to conveyance of green pellets and thus one skilled in the art would recognize and incorporate improvements and teachings from one reference to the other.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the roller arrangement of MEYER with the roller arrangements as taught by LEONHARDT that the paired rollers allow for cleaning between the respective pair (see in LEONHARDT, Col. 2, lines 46-62 and Col. 3, lines 8-17).
In addition, in a related field of endeavor, particularly of sieving that would applicable to the LEONHARDT reference, wherein the VAANANEN reference teaches of a roller screen with sections of roller arrangements, each section having multiple rollers, see Fig. 1, parts 7, 8, and 9. Further includes that 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. This teaching being applicable to the LEONHARDT teachings and thus with the modified MEYER regarding roller arrangement operations for screening accuracy for the roller arrangements.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the process of the modified MEYER with the roller arrangements having increasing rotational speed as taught by VAANANEN for providing increased screening accuracy of the agglomerates and pellets along the rollers.
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.
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 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).
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAYER in view of LEONHARDT and VAANANEN 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 further modify the rollers of the 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 in view of LEONHARDT and VAANANEN 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 of the modified 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 the modified 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEYER in view of LEONHARDT and 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 in view of LEONHARDT and VAANANEN 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 further modify the rollers of the modified MEYER 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 in view of LEONHARDT and VAANANEN 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 modify the process of the 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 further modify the process of the 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 and VAANANEN as applied to 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 further modify the process of the 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