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 .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 02/26/2026, claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, and 14-17 have been amended. Claims 1-18 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objection made in the previous non-final rejection office action dated on 11/26/2025, Applicant amended specification and submitted replacement drawing on 02/26/2026. Thus, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrases may be amended as, “a nozzle to blast the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance” in line 8, “a pneumatic line to transport the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance” in line 10, “[[the ]]rotation about its axis and made in [[the]]a form of at least one cutter ” in lines 16-17, “… parallel to [[the]]a plane of the rotating cutter die” in lines 18-19, “the pellets of solid cryogenic substance with a size that exceeds a size specified for cleaning” in line 31, and “in [[the]]a plane defined by …” in line 32.
Claim 9 recites the phrase “wherein the surface of the flat throughput die that is in contact with the rotating cutter die … are smooth”, but claim 1 also recites “wherein a surface of the flat throughput die that is in contact with the rotating cutter die is smooth” in lines 28-29. Therefore, dependent claim 9 repeats the same claim limitations and the phrase in claim 9 may be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris (WO 2020/204841A1), in view of Karpenko et al. (UA 44089U, hereinafter Karpenko), Frantellizzi (US 7833619), and Mallaley et al. (US 2017/0106500, cited on 10/06/2023 IDS, hereinafter Mallaley ‘500).
Regarding claim 1, Gabris discloses an apparatus for cleaning with solid cryogenic substance (¶ 0023, a device for reducing the size of dry ice granules for dry ice cleaning device. Specification of the instant application teaches, in ¶ 0011, the solid cryogenic substance is dry ice) comprising:
a hopper to store pellets of solid cryogenic substance (fig. 1 and ¶ 0037, body 1 [corresponds to the recited hopper] is a dry ice container);
a crusher for pellets of solid cryogenic substance made to allow cutting the said pellets of solid cryogenic substance (figs. 4-6 and ¶ 0047-48, a device having a static pin 16 and blades 321 crumbles the dry ice to reduce its size);
a feeding unit made to allow transporting crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance into a compressed air stream (¶ 0047, the crumbled dry ice is led to a device [corresponds to the recited feeding unit] for mixing of the dry ice particles with the flow of air);
a nozzle to blast crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance on an object to be cleaned (¶ 0023, mixture of compressed air and dry ice particles is led into a working nozzle and is blasted at the object to be cleaned); and
a pneumatic line to transport crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance from the said feeding unit to the said nozzle (¶ 0023, a hose system [corresponds to the recited pneumatic line] supplies the mixture of the air and dry ice particles into the working nozzle);
wherein the said crusher comprises:
a body of the crusher (fig. 1, body 1);
a stationary cutter die made with at least one stationary cutter and secured on the said body of the crusher (fig. 1 and ¶ 0045 and 0048, a guiding member 34 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter die] includes a static pin 16 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter]; ¶ 0048, the static pin 16 disintegrate agglomeration of the granulate which may be carried by the rotating blades 312. Thus, the static pin 16 is a stationary device otherwise it would not perform the function if it rotates along with the blades 312),
a rotating cutter die made to allow the rotation about its axis and made in the form of at least one cutter with a cutting edge (¶ 0040-43, a body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] includes a rotating blade wheel 32 [corresponds to the recited cutter] with an edge. The blade wheel rotates about an axis shown as a dotted line in fig. 5); and
a flat throughput die located in the said body of the crusher in a plane that is parallel to the plane of the rotating cutter die (fig. 4 and ¶ 0038-40, a die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] is located in the body 1. A horizontal plane of the die is parallel to a horizontal plane of the body 323 having the rotating blade wheel 32);
wherein the said rotating cutter die is located between a mounting plane of the said stationary cutter die and a mounting plane of the said flat throughput die, and is parallel to the plane of the said stationary cutter die (fig. 4, the blade wheel 32 [corresponds to the recited cutter] is disposed between the guiding member 34 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter die] and the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die]. A mounting plane of the guiding member 34 and a mounting plane of the die 2 are horizontally disposed so that the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] is disposed parallel to the guiding member 34),
wherein the stationary cutter die is located relative to the flat throughput die at a distance that determines the size of crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance (¶ 0045, a distance between the pin 16 and the blades 321 should ensure that possible aggregates of the granulate do not exceed a size of feeding gaps. Thus, the spacing of the pin with the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] is considered with respect to the granulate size. Because the body 323 is disposed vertically above the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die], the spacing also is related to a spacing between the pin 16 and the die 2), and
wherein the flat throughput die made with multiple through holes made to allow holding the pellets of solid cryogenic substance with a size that exceeds the one specified for cleaning, when cutting the said pellets in the plane defined by the contact between the flat throughput die and the rotating cutter die and subsequently letting through the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance with the size specified for cleaning (fig. 4 and ¶ 0047, the die 2 comprises orifices 21 [correspond to the recited through holes]. The granulates of reduced size are pushed into the orifices 21 by the motion of the wheel 32. Thus, big granulates would not pass through the orifices and would be held on the die 2), but does not disclose the rotating cutter die is made of a wear-resistant polymer. Gabris is silent as to what material make the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die].
Karpenko teaches, in a cutting device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the rotating cutter die is made of a wear-resistant polymer (fig. 8 and Karpenko English translation, p. 4:4-6, 17:34-18:5 a plate 66 coupled with a cutter 57 is made of a wear-resistant polymer material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris to provide the wear-resistant polymer as taught by Karpenko so that a component of the device can resist abrasive rubbing with particles (Karpenko English translation, p. 4:4-6).
Gabris as modified by Karpenko does not disclose the polymer retains its strength at dry ice temperature.
Frantellizzi teaches, in a polymer material product field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the polymer retains its strength at dry ice temperature (col. 3:32-35, there is a polymer, Kevlar® that maintains strength and resilience down to cryogenic temperatures, -196º C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus to utilize the polymer that retains its strength at dry ice temperature as taught by Frantellizzi so that a device can be usable in very low temperature. By combining with Gabris and Karpenko, the polymer of Frantellizzi can be used to make the Karpenko’s component of the cutter device so that the dry ice cleaning device of Gabris can be made of material that endures very low temperature.
Gabris as modified by Karpenko and Frantellizzi does not disclose the rotating cutter die lies on and rubs against the flat throughput die. Gabris discloses the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] is disposed slightly above the die 2/24 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] as shown in fig. 5. It can be considered the body 323 lies on the die but not necessarily rubs the die.
Mallaley ‘500 teaches, in a particle cutting device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the rotating cutter die lies on and rubs against the flat throughput die (¶ 0033 and figs. 1 and 6, particles are transported through passageway between rollers 12, 14 [correspond to the recited rotating cutter die] to reduce size of the particles. The particles enter into recess 16 of a surface 18 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die]. The rollers 12, 14 lie on and rub against the surface 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko and Frantellizzi to make the rotating cutter die lies on the flat throughput die to rub the flat throughput die as taught Mallaley ‘500 in order to ensure that all particles passing through the cutter die enter into the throughput die. No particle is lost.
Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches a surface of the flat throughput die that is in contact with the rotating cutter die is smooth (Gabris, fig. 4, a surface of the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] is smooth. By combining Gabris with Mallaley ‘500, they teach the flat throughput die would make contact with the rotating cutter die, thus the smooth surface of die 2 would be in contact with the rotating cutter die).
Regarding claim 2, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the crusher is made to allow cutting the pellets of solid cryogenic substance in a plane defined by the contact between the stationary cutter die and the rotating cutter die (Gabris, ¶ 0045 and 0048, the agglomerates of the granules carried by the blades 312 are disintegrated by the pine 16. The spacing distance between the pin 16 and the blades 321 ensures that possible aggregates of the granulate do not exceed a size of feeding gaps. The granulates eventually pass through the orifices 21, thus the blades 312 would cut the granulates to a required size), and/or in a plane defined by the contact between the flat throughput die and the rotating cutter die (Gabris, ¶ 0047, there is a plane between the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] and the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die]. The rotation of the blades 321 on the die 2 pushes the granulates into the orifices 21 and the size of granulates is reduced during the motion).
Regarding claim 3, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the crusher is made so that the flat throughput die is made to allow lateral installation and removal from the body of the crusher without disassembling the body, rotating cutter die and stationary cutter die.
As shown in Gabris, fig. 4, however, the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] is installed such that a rotating axis of the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] and a center of the guiding member 34 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter die] are offset from the die 2. In addition, the die 2 protrudes from the body 1 and is mounted in a compartment 141, which allow lateral installation and removal of the die 2 without disassembly the body 1, the body 323, and the grinding member 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to allow the flat throughput die to be laterally installed or removed so that the flat throughput die can be easily replaced when the size of the orifices 21 changes after multiple use. The size change of orifices may allow inappropriately sized particles to pass through.
Regarding claim 5, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the through holes in the flat throughput die are made in the form of a circle, rectangle, triangle, oval, or complex curved shape.
However, specification of the instant application does not explain particularity of the shape of the through holes. They can be any shape. Specification states that a distance between opposite edges of the hole needs to ensure allowing only the crumbled particles of certain dimensions (¶ 0065). Therefore, the shape of the through holes is not important.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the orifices of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide different shapes as long as the size of the orifices allows only the granules of the certain size to pass through in order to increase cleaning effect by blasting the dry ice particles.
Regarding claim 9, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the surface of the flat throughput die that is in contact with the rotating cutter die and the surface of the stationary cutter die that is in contact with the rotating cutter die, are smooth (Gabris, fig. 4, a surface of the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] in contact with the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] is smooth; fig. 5, a surface of the guiding member 34 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter die] in contact with the body 323 is smooth).
Regarding claim 12, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the body of the crusher is made with a hollow inner cylindrical part (Gabris, fig. 4, the body 1 has a hollow inner cylindrical part to accommodate the crusher), but does not disclose a side surface of the cylindrical part of the body of the crusher is made with an outlet opening for crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance.
However, Gabris discloses another embodiment having an outlet opening 13 on a side surface of the body 1 (fig. 1 and ¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide the outlet opening in order to release the reduced granulates to be blasted at an object to be cleaned (Gabris ¶ 0023 and 0026).
Regarding claim 14, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein a target size of the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance obtained after passing through the flat throughput die is within the range of 0.1 mm to 6 mm (¶ 0050, the maximum granulate size after passing the orifices 21 of the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] is 1.5 mm).
Regarding claim 15, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches a method for cleaning with solid cryogenic substance by using the apparatus of claim 1, including the steps, wherein:
The pellets of solid cryogenic substance are loaded into the hopper for storing the pellets of solid cryogenic substance (Gabris, ¶ 0037, dry ice is provided to a body 1 [corresponds to the recited hopper]);
compressed air is fed into the feeding unit (Gabris, ¶ 0047, the crumbled dry ice is led to a device [corresponds to the recited feeding unit] for mixing of the dry ice particles with the flow of air; ¶ 0023, the air is compressed air. Thus, the compressed air is fed into the feeding device);
the pellets of solid cryogenic substance are fed into the crusher (Gabris, ¶ 0047, the dry ice granulates is moved a surface of the guiding member 34 [corresponds to the recited stationary cutter die] and toward the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die]);
the pellets of solid cryogenic substance are held in the through holes of the flat throughput die (Gabris, ¶ 0047, the die 2 comprises orifices 21 [correspond to the recited through holes]. The granulates of reduced size are pushed into the orifices 21 by the motion of the wheel 32. Thus, big granulates would not pass through the orifices and would be held on the die 2);
the pellets of solid cryogenic substance are cut in the plane defined by the contact between the flat throughput die and the rotating cutter die (Gabris, ¶ 0047, there is a plane between the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] and the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die]. The rotation of the blades 321 on the die 2 pushes the granulates into the orifices 21 and the size of granulates is reduced during the motion);
the crushed pellets of the size specified for cleaning are transported through the flat throughput die (Gabris, ¶ 0047, the granulates of reduced size are pushed into the orifices 21 [correspond to the recited through holes] of the die 2 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] by the motion of the wheel 32);
the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance of the size specified for cleaning are transported to compressed air stream in the feeding unit (Gabris, ¶ 0047, the crumbled dry ice is led to a device [corresponds to the recited feeding unit] for mixing of the dry ice particles with the flow of air),
the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance are transported over a pneumatic line from the feeding unit to the nozzle (Gabris, ¶ 0023, a hose system [corresponds to the recited pneumatic line] supplies the mixture of the air and dry ice particles into the working nozzle);
an object to be cleaned is cleaned by blasting a mixture of compressed air and the crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance through the nozzle (Gabris, ¶ 0023, mixture of compressed air and dry ice particles is led into a working nozzle and is blasted at the object to be cleaned).
Regarding claim 16, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the pellets of solid cryogenic substance are additionally cut in a plane defined by the contact between the stationary cutter die and the rotating cutter die (Gabris, ¶ 0045 and 0048, the agglomerates of the granules carried by the blades 312 are disintegrated by the pine 16. The spacing distance between the pin 16 and the blades 321 ensures that possible aggregates of the granulate do not exceed a size of feeding gaps. The granulates eventually pass through the orifices 21, thus the blades 312 would cut the granulates to a required size).
Regarding claim 17, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the hopper is loaded with pellets of solid cryogenic substance that have a diameter of 1 mm to 30 mm (Gabris, ¶ 0050, a standard granulate size may be 3 to 3.5 mm).
Regarding claim 18, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the method as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the pellets of solid cryogenic substance are transported from the hopper to the crusher under their own weight (Gabris, ¶ 0037, the granulate can be drawn to the device gravitationally).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Solenthaler et al. (US 2013/0139853, hereinafter Solenthaler).
Regarding claim 4, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the through holes of the flat throughput die are slit-shaped and radially divergent.
Solenthaler teaches, in an analogous dry ice cleaning apparatus field of endeavor, the through holes of the flat throughput die are slit-shaped and radially divergent (fig. 1 and ¶ 0091, Solenthaler discloses an apparatus comprising a dry ice storage container 10, a pneumatic cylinder driven by a compressed air device, and an air gun for blasting the dry ice; ¶ 0094, an insert plate 105a [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] with through-openings 106 [correspond to the recited through holes] is located at a bottom of the container and dry ice particles pass through the openings prior to being transported to the air gun; ¶ 0113-16, the shape of the openings 106 can have a slit shape (figs. 11(b) and (d)), and can be divergent radially (fig. 11(d)). The openings become bigger radially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the through holes of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide the slit shape and radially divergent shape as taught by Solenthaler. The dry ice is sieved through the through-openings 106 so that an appropriately sized dry ice is fed to an intake fitting of the device (Solenthaler ¶ 0094).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Murray et al. (US 3482423, hereinafter Murray).
Regarding claim 6, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the rotating cutter die is in the form of at least two cutters with cutting edges radially divergent (fig. 4, there are two or more blades 321. A cutting edge of the blade is angled so that it is radially divergent), but does not disclose the cutting edges are connected to each other by an outer rim.
Murray teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the cutting edges are connected to each other by an outer rim (fig. 1 and col. 1:31-35, a peening apparatus comprises rotating blades 25 wherein edges of the blades are connected to an outer rim 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotating cutter die of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide (the outer rim as taught by Murray in order to provide strength for the blade and to improve the blade contour (Murray col. 1:35-37).
Regarding claim 7, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the stationary cutters wherein the stationary cutter die is made in the form of two stationary cutters with cutting edges radially extending. Gabris discloses only one static pin 16 which extends radially.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide two stationary cutters by duplicating the pin in order to increase disintegration of the agglomerates of the granules to produce more dry ice particles for blasting. Then two pins would be extended in two different directions. It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 still does not disclose the cutting edges are connected to each other by an outer rim.
Murray teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the cutting edges are connected to each other by an outer rim (fig. 1 and col. 1:31-35, a peening apparatus comprises rotating blades 25 wherein edges of the blades are connected to an outer rim 23. Whether the outer rim is for the rotating cutters or the stationary cutters, the purpose of utilizing the outer rim is the same).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stationary cutter die of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide (the outer rim as taught by Murray in order to provide strength for the blade and to improve the blade contour (Murray col. 1:35-37).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cao (CN 206034363U).
Regarding claim 8, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the rotating cutter die is made of a strong wear-resistant material.
Cao teaches, in an analogous cutting device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the rotating cutter die is made of a strong wear-resistant material (Cao English translation, p. 5:32-6:9, a rotating ice cutting device may be made of a wear resistant metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide the cutter to be made of a strong wear-resistant material as taught by Cao so that the cutter can be used for a long period without being damaged or eroded.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of He (CN 105798779A).
Regarding claim 10, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the rotating cutter die is mounted on a shaft, which is mounted to allow the rotation in the body (fig. 5, the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] is mounted on a shaft to be rotated in the body 1), but does not disclose the shaft is driven by a shaft rotation drive made in the form of an electric motor with a gearbox.
He teaches, in an analogous ice cutting device field of endeavor, the shaft is driven by a shaft rotation drive made in the form of an electric motor with a gearbox (figs. 2-3 and He English translation, p. 3:27-4:28, He discloses a dry ice deburring machine. A driven gear 25 [corresponds to the rotating cutter die] rotates about a rotating shaft 454. A motor 455 and a driving gear 20 rotate the shaft 454).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide the motor with the gearbox as taught by He in order to provide consistent rotation of the device for effective cutting of dry ice.
Regarding claim 11, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the rotating cutter die is made with meshing teeth arranged circumferentially, wherein the rotating cutter die is driven in rotational motion about its axis by engagement with a gear transmission through the said meshing teeth or by engagement with a chain transmission from an external drive through the said meshing teeth.
He teaches, in an analogous ice cutting device field of endeavor, the rotating cutter die is made with meshing teeth arranged circumferentially, wherein the rotating cutter die is driven in rotational motion about its axis by engagement with a gear transmission through the said meshing teeth or by engagement with a chain transmission from an external drive through the said meshing teeth (figs. 2-3 and He English translation, p. 3:27-4:28, the driven gear 25 [corresponds to the rotating cutter die] is rotated about the shaft 454 by a transmission chain 30. Therefore, the driven gear 25 must have meshing teeth arranged circumferentially. The driving gear 20 rotate the driven gear 25 with a chain transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 to provide the meshing teeth and the rotational motion by the chain transmission as taught by He in order to provide consistent rotation of the device for effective cutting of dry ice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabris in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mallaley et al. (US 2019/0321942, cited on 01/06/2023 IDS, hereinafter Mallaley ‘942).
Regarding claim 13, Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the body of the crusher has a rotational impeller mounted under the flat throughput die for rejecting the said crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance from the said body.
Mallaley ‘942 teaches, in an analogous particle blast apparatus field of endeavor, the body of the crusher has a rotational impeller mounted under the flat throughput die for rejecting the said crushed pellets of solid cryogenic substance from the said body (¶ 0036, Mallaley discloses a particle blast apparatus which can utilize particles of cryogenic material; fig. 5A and ¶ 0047-49 and 0054, a feeding rotor 54 [corresponds to the recited rotational impeller] is disposed below a comminutor 28 which receives particles and reduces size of the particles. The rotation of feeding rotor 54 introduces the particles into a flow of gas to deliver them to a discharge nozzle 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Gabris as modified by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 teaches to provide the impeller as taught by Mallaley ‘942 in order to transport particles of cryogenic substance to the nozzle for blasting them to an object to be cleaned.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500.
Applicant argues Gabris no longer discloses all elements of amended claim 1. Examiner acknowledges the amended claim limitations are taught by Karpenko, Frantellizzi, and Mallaley ‘500 references.
Regarding the rotating cutter die made of a wear-resistant polymer which retains its strength at dry ice temperature, Gabris does not disclose what material makes the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die], however, Karpenko teaches a component of a cutter device can be made of a wear-resistant polymer material (Karpenko English translation, p. 4:4-6). Furthermore, Frantellizzi teaches the polymer, Kevlar® maintains its strength down to cryogenic temperature, -196ºC (col. 3:32-35). Thus, by combining Gabris with Karpenko and Frantellizzi, the Kevlar® can be used for the die of Gabris.
Regarding the rotating cutter dies lies on and rubs against the flat throughput die and the surface of the flat throughput die is smooth, Gabris shows, in fig. 6, the body 323 [corresponds to the recited rotating cutter die] lies on the die 2/24[corresponds to the recited flat throughput die] (fig. 5) wherein a surface of the die 2 is smooth (figs. 4-5). But the body 323 does not physically touch the die 2. Thus, Mallaley ‘500 is cited to teach the particles passing through the rollers [equivalent to the rotating cutter die] for reducing a size enters the recess 16 of a surface 18 [corresponds to the recited flat throughput die]. The rollers lie on and rub against the surface 18. Thus, Mallaley ‘500 teaches the apparatus of Gabris can be arranged for the body 323 to rub against the die 2.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights