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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (07/09/2023, 04/03/2024, 09/19/2024, 09/17/2025, 02/03/2026) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 in lines 5 – 6 recites “(b) pelletizing the discharged resin raw material after the (a)”. For clarity of the record, claim 12 should be amended to e.g., - - (b) pelletizing the discharged resin raw material after the step (a) - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 2, 5 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 2021/0114260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer teaches a granulating device die (e.g., “nozzle head 3” [0043], of an “underwater pelletizer 1”, see [0041] and FIG. 2, and the annotated copy of Fischer FIG. 2 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
689
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the above figure, the annotated were added by the examiner to facilitate the discussion of LIST. In the above figure, LIST teaches a granulating device die comprising:
a bottom surface (SB) having a circular shape in plan view (see FIG. 1);
an upper surface (SU) having a circular shape in the plan view (see FIG. 1), the upper surface (SU) being concentric with the bottom surface (SB), and having a radius smaller than a radius of the bottom surface (see FIG. 2);
a side surface (“cutting surface 31”, see [0043] and FIG. 2) that connects an outermost peripheral portion of the bottom surface (OPSB) and an outermost peripheral portion of the upper surface (OPSU); and
a plurality of die holes (“nozzles 32”) that discharge a resin raw material, the die holes (32) being defined in the side surface (see [0043] “the nozzle head 3 is formed as a three-dimensional rotary body having a center axis M that likewise defines a longitudinal axis of the nozzle head and has a plurality of nozzles 32 that are formed in a conically shaped region of the nozzle head 3 that is here called a cutting surface 31”).
Therefore, Fischer’s nozzle head 3 anticipates the claimed granulating device die as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Fischer teaches the granulating device die according to claim 1, wherein the bottom surface (SB), the upper surface (SU), and the side surface (31) constitute a circular truncated cone shape (e.g., see FIGs. 1 and 2 and [0016] “a nozzle head having a cutting surface, in particular a cutting surface formed in a conical, frustoconical, cylindrical or cap-shaped manner, that is rotationally symmetrical about a center axis of the nozzle head”, and [0018] “a nozzle head for an underwater pelletizer having a rotationally symmetrical, for example frustoconical, cutting surface. A cutting surface can be provided in this manner that has a large area and in which a correspondingly large number of nozzles can be provided that permits a correspondingly large throughput rate of pelletization, while the maximum diameter of such a nozzle head is at the same time substantially reduced in size in comparison with a perforated plate of conventional construction.”).
Regarding claim 5, Fischer teaches a granulating device cutter blade holder (e.g., “ blade support ring 8”, see [0045] and FIGs. 1 – 2) comprising:
a cutter shaft (e.g., “shaft connection section 82”, see [0045]) that is rotatable and connected to a shaft (e.g., “hollow shaft 6”) of a driving motor (e.g., “rotary drive 12”, see [0041] and FIG. 1); and
a cutter blade connecting portion (e.g., “cutting blade mount section 81”, see [0044] and FIGs. 1 – 2) that is rotatable and connected to the cutter shaft (82, see [0045] and FIG. 2), the cutter blade connecting portion (81) being for connecting to a plurality of cutter blades (e.g., “cutter 91”, see [0044 – 0046] and FIG. 2),
wherein an outer shape of the cutter blade connecting portion (81) is a circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), a rotation axis of the cutter blade connecting portion is orthogonal to a bottom surface (SB) and an upper surface (SU) that constitute the circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), and the plurality of cutter blades (91) are connectable to a side surface (e.g., 93, 94) that constitutes the circular truncated cone shape (see FIGs. 2, 3, 7).
Regarding claim 6, Fischer teaches a granulating device cutter blade unit (e.g., “cutting head 5”, [0041] see FIG. 1) comprising:
a cutter shaft (e.g., “shaft connection section 82”, see [0045]) that is rotatable and connected to a shaft (e.g., “hollow shaft 6”) of a driving motor (e.g., “rotary drive 12”, see [0041] and FIG. 1);
a cutter blade connecting portion (e.g., “cutting blade mount section 81”, see [0044] and FIGs. 1 – 2) that is rotatable and connected to the cutter shaft (82, see [0045] and FIG. 2), the cutter blade connecting portion (81) being for connecting to a plurality of cutter blades (e.g., “cutter 91”, see [0044 – 0046] and FIG. 2),
wherein an outer shape of the cutter blade connecting portion (81) is a circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), a rotation axis of the cutter blade connecting portion is orthogonal to a bottom surface (SB) and an upper surface (SU) that constitute the circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), and the plurality of cutter blades (91) are connectable to a side surface (e.g., 93, 94) that constitutes the circular truncated cone shape (see FIGs. 2, 3, 7).
Regarding claim 7, Fischer teaches a resin-cutting device (e.g., “cutting head 5”, [0041] see FIG. 1) comprising:
a die that discharges a resin raw material (e.g., “nozzle head 3” [0041], FIGs. 1 – 2, see [0007, 0014 – 0018]); and
a cutter blade unit (e.g., “cutting head 5”, [0041] see FIG. 1) that pelletizes the discharged resin raw material [0041 – 0044],
wherein the die includes: a bottom surface (SB) having a circular shape in plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2);
an upper surface (SU) having a circular shape in the plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2), the upper surface (SU) being concentric with the bottom surface (SB), and having a radius smaller than a radius of the bottom surface (see the above annotated FIG. 2, and the discussion of claim 1 above);
a side surface (31) that connects an outermost peripheral portion of the bottom surface (OPSB) and an outermost peripheral portion of the upper surface (OPSU); and a plurality of die holes (“nozzles 32”) that discharge a resin raw material, the die holes (32) being defined in the side surface (see [0043] “the nozzle head 3 is formed as a three-dimensional rotary body having a center axis M that likewise defines a longitudinal axis of the nozzle head and has a plurality of nozzles 32 that are formed in a conically shaped region of the nozzle head 3 that is here called a cutting surface 31”).
Therefore, Fischer anticipates the claimed resin-cutting device as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Fischer teaches a granulating device (e.g., “underwater pelletizer 1”, see [0041] FIG. 1) comprising:
a die that discharges a resin raw material (e.g., “nozzle head 3” [0041], FIGs. 1 – 2, see [0007, 0014 – 0018]); and
a cutter blade unit(e.g., “cutting head 5”, [0041] see FIG. 1) that pelletizes the discharged resin raw material [0041 – 0044],
wherein the die (3) includes: a bottom surface (SB) having a circular shape in plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2);
an upper surface (SU) having a circular shape in the plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2), the upper surface (SU) being concentric with the bottom surface (SB), and having a radius smaller than a radius of the bottom surface (see the above annotated FIG. 2, and the discussion of claim 1 above);
a side surface (31) that connects an outermost peripheral portion of the bottom surface (OPSB) and an outermost peripheral portion of the upper surface (OPSU); and a plurality of die holes (“nozzles 32”) that discharge a resin raw material, the die holes (32) being defined in the side surface (see [0043] “the nozzle head 3 is formed as a three-dimensional rotary body having a center axis M that likewise defines a longitudinal axis of the nozzle head and has a plurality of nozzles 32 that are formed in a conically shaped region of the nozzle head 3 that is here called a cutting surface 31”).
Therefore, Fischer anticipates the claimed granulating device as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Fischer teaches the granulating device granulating device according to claim 8, wherein the bottom surface (SB), the upper surface (SU), and the side surface (31) constitute a circular truncated cone shape (e.g., see FIGs. 1 and 2 and [0016 – 0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Fischer teaches the granulating device according to claim 8, further comprising a chamber (e.g., “cutting chamber 2”, see FIG. 1 and [0041]) that accommodates the die (3) and the cutter blade unit (5) (see FIG. 1 and [0041]), wherein the chamber (2) includes: an inflow portion (e.g., “pipe 10”) into which liquid flows (see FIGs. 1 – 2, and [0041, 0047]); and an outflow portion (e.g., “return pipe 15”) through which the liquid and pellets pelletized by the cutter blade unit flow out (see [0041] “The hollow shaft 6 simultaneously serves the supply of process water into the cutting chamber 2. The hollow shaft 6 is connected for this purpose to a process water supply pipe 10 via a rotary union 11. The process water with the pellets contained therein are led off from the cutting chamber 2 via a process water return pipe 15.”).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer teaches the granulating device according to claim 8, wherein the cutter blade unit (e.g., “cutting head 5”, [0041] see FIG. 1) includes:
a cutter shaft (e.g., “shaft connection section 82”, see [0045]) that is rotatable and connected to a shaft (e.g., “hollow shaft 6”) of a driving motor (e.g., “rotary drive 12”, see [0041] and FIG. 1);
a cutter blade connecting portion (e.g., “cutting blade mount section 81”, see [0044] and FIGs. 1 – 2) that is rotatable and connected to the cutter shaft (82, see [0045] and FIG. 2); and
a plurality of cutter blades (e.g., “cutter 91”) that are connected to the cutter blade connecting portion (81) (see [0044 – 0046] and FIG. 2),
wherein an outer shape of the cutter blade connecting portion (81) is a circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), a rotation axis of the cutter blade connecting portion (81) is orthogonal to a bottom surface (SB) and an upper surface (SU) that constitute the circular truncated cone shape (see FIG. 2), the plurality of cutter blades (91) are connected to a side surface (e.g., 93, 94) that constitutes the circular truncated cone shape (see FIGs. 2, 3, 7), and the plurality of cutter blades (91) rotate along the side surface of the die (see FIGs, 2, 3, 7 and [0044 – 0046]).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer teaches a resin (e.g., “plastic material” [0043]) pellet manufacturing method comprising (e.g., see [0039 – 0040, 0058]):
(a) discharging a resin raw material from a die (3) of granulating machine (1) (e.g., see [0007, 0014, 0016, 0043 – 0046]); and
(b) pelletizing the discharged resin raw material after the step (a) (e.g., see [0046]),
wherein the die (3) includes: a bottom surface (SB) having a circular shape in plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2);
an upper surface (SU) having a circular shape in the plan view (see the above annotated FIG. 2), the upper surface (SU) being concentric with the bottom surface (SB), and having a radius smaller than a radius of the bottom surface (see the above annotated FIG. 2, and the discussion of claim 1 above);
a side surface (31) that connects an outermost peripheral portion of the bottom surface (OPSB) and an outermost peripheral portion of the upper surface (OPSU); and a plurality of die holes (“nozzles 32”) that discharge a resin raw material, the die holes (32) being defined in the side surface [0043].
Therefore, Fischer anticipates the claimed resin pellet manufacturing method as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Fischer teaches the resin pellet manufacturing method according to claim 12, wherein the bottom surface (SB), the upper surface (SU), and the side surface (31) constitute a circular truncated cone shape (e.g., see FIGs. 1 and 2 and [0016] “a nozzle head having a cutting surface, in particular a cutting surface formed in a conical, frustoconical, cylindrical or cap-shaped manner, that is rotationally symmetrical about a center axis of the nozzle head”, and [0018] “a nozzle head for an underwater pelletizer having a rotationally symmetrical, for example frustoconical, cutting surface. A cutting surface can be provided in this manner that has a large area and in which a correspondingly large number of nozzles can be provided that permits a correspondingly large throughput rate of pelletization, while the maximum diameter of such a nozzle head is at the same time substantially reduced in size in comparison with a perforated plate of conventional construction.”).
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 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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2021/0114260 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of F. H. CLUTE (US Pat. No. 3,304,578).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer teaches the granulating device die according to claim 1, except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the side surface is curved in side view.
However, changing the shape of the side surface to be curved would not inherently change the functioning of the granulating device die e.g., it wouldn’t preclude the extrusion function of the die. Additionally, modifying the cutting blades to have a contour matching that of a curved die side surface is well known in the art.
For example, CLUTE teaches a pelleting machine comprising a perforated head 128 having a curved side surface (analogous to the claimed granulating device die) (see FIGs. 11 – 14 and Col. 6 lines 21 – 37), as well as a cutter blade 178 (see Col. 7 lines 54 – 56 “The extruded material is severed into particles by blade 178 upon rotation of the latter under the influence of shaft 142.”; Col. 8 lines 20 – 22 “Cutter blade 178 is preferably releasably coupled with shaft 142 so that head 128 may be replaced by a head having perforations of greater or lesser dimensions.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the side surface in the granulating die device of Fischer, with a curved side surface, as taught by CLUTE, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (B)
It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (US 2021/0114260 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of E. A. BODKIN (US Pat. No. 2,604,662).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer teaches the granulating device die according to claim 1, except for, wherein hardness of a material constituting the side surface is higher than hardness of a material constituting the upper surface.
In the same field of endeavor of granulating device die, granulating devices and methods thereof, BODKIN discloses that pelleting and extrusion means have been adopted to render hydrogels and the like into a particle form of desired size and shape (Col. 1 lines 1 – 20), and discloses that difficulty has been encountered in the extrusion of materials such as inorganic oxide hydrogels, due to adhesion of these materials to the walls of the metal die openings and occasionally due to die corrosion arising from acidic properties of the particular charge undergoing extrusion, resulting in irregular, physically weak products, since such particles produced by mechanically cutting the extruded spaghetti-like material have been nonuniform in length and have possessed inadequate physical strength and hardness sufficient to resist abrasion under all conditions of handling and treatment (Col. 1 lines 21 – 44).
BODKIN discloses that die surfaces composed of materials having a Rockwell hardness of less than about 50, lead to rapid wear of the die orifice and an enlargement of its diameter, resulting in frequent changes of the die plate in order to maintain the diameter of the extruded particles with relatively close tolerances, and that the pressure of the knife against the extruded product to cut into particles of desired length as it emerges from the die creates a pressure of said product against one side of the die orifice, resulting in a greater wear on that side when the die surface is composed of a material of insufficient hardness characteristics, resulting in non-uniform die orifice wear, giving rise to an oval-shaped, enlarged die opening which, in turn, leads to the formation of a nonuniform extruded product (Col. 3 lines 7 – 47).
BODKIN discloses that by employing a thermoplastic die surface composed of a material having a Rockwell hardness of between about 50 and 130, the inorganic oxide hydrogels may be readily extruded without encountering the aforesaid difficulties, with polystyrene and polymethyl methacrylate plastics, having a hardness within this range, “have proved to be excellent materials in providing a die surface permitting the ready extrusion of inorganic oxide hydrogels” (Col. 3 lines 18 – 70).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the side surface of the granulating device die of Fischer by selecting a material constituting the side surface having a hardness higher than a material constituting the upper surface, as suggested by the prior art of BODKIN, for the purpose of e.g., providing a granulating device die capable of avoiding wear of said side surface and of the plurality of die holes caused by the pressure applied by a cutter blade, since BODKIN teaches that the pressure of the knife against the extruded product to cut into particles of desired length as it emerges from the die creates a pressure of said product against one side of the die orifice, resulting in a greater wear on that side when the die surface is composed of a material of insufficient hardness characteristics, resulting in non-uniform die orifice wear, giving rise to an oval-shaped, enlarged die opening which, in turn, leads to the formation of a nonuniform extruded product (Col. 3 lines 7 – 47). See MPEP 2143 (I) (Rationale G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP-2741176-B2: See FIGs. 1 and 4. [0001] directed to a method and an apparatus for granulating thermoplastic resin strands continuously discharged from a plurality of die nozzles of a die plate is cut by a rotating rotary cutter into resin (plastic) pellets, and solidified by cooling with cooling water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights