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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinz (DE102014100199B3 attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Otto (WO2009083005A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation), Dong (CN111266292A) and Wedag (DE202009014079U1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 8-9, Heinz discloses a high-pressure roller press for comminuting brittle material for grinding, the high-pressure roller press comprising:
at least two grinding rollers (fig.1: (1) and (2)) arranged next to one another and configured to rotate in opposite directions and form a roller gap (fig.3: (3)) between them, and
a respective lateral wall (fig.1: (6) and (7)) at two ends of the roller gap,
Heinz does not disclose wherein a first grinding roller of the at least two grinding rollers is a fixed roller and a second grinding roller of the at least two grinding rollers is a floating roller; and wherein the respective lateral wall has a vibration device which makes the respective lateral wall mechanically oscillate with a vibration frequency between 10 Hz and 150 Hz and to introduce mechanical energy into the brittle material for grinding within the roller gap.
Otto discloses a high-pressure roller press for comminuting brittle material for grinding (paragraphs 0001-0002 and 0037-0040), the high-pressure roller press comprising:
at least two grinding rollers arranged next to one another and configured to rotate in opposite directions and form a roller gap (fig.2: (18)) between them, wherein a first grinding roller of the at least two grinding rollers is a fixed roller (fig.2: (14)) and a
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least two grinding rollers of the apparatus of Heinz to be wherein a first grinding roller of the at least two grinding rollers is a fixed roller and a second grinding roller of the at least two grinding rollers is a floating roller as taught by Otto, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Heinz in view of Otto does not disclose wherein the respective lateral wall has a vibration device which makes the respective lateral wall mechanically oscillate with a vibration frequency between 10 Hz and 150 Hz and to introduce mechanical energy into the brittle material for grinding within the roller gap.
Dong teaches a material processing device comprising:
walls have a vibration device which makes the walls mechanically oscillate (paragraphs 0037 and 0046-0047);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the respective lateral wall of the apparatus of Heinz in view of Otto to have a vibration device which makes the respective lateral wall mechanically oscillate as taught by Dong, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Regarding claim 8-9, Heinz over in view of Otto and Dong does not disclose a vibration frequency between 10 Hz and 150 Hz and to introduce mechanical energy into the brittle material for grinding within the roller gap; wherein the vibration device introduces an input of energy between 0.1 kJ/m3 and 10 kJ/m3 into the material for grinding (M).
Wedag teaches a high-pressure roller press for comminuting brittle material for grinding (paragraphs 0001 and 0018), the high-pressure roller press comprising:
at least two grinding rollers (fig.1: (14) and (14’)) arranged next to one another and configured to rotate in opposite directions and form a roller gap between them (fig.1: the gap between (14) and (14’)), and
a vibration device operates with a frequency, and introduces an input of energy into the material for grinding (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the configuration of the vibrating device of the apparatus of Heinz over in view of Otto and Dong by the configuration of the vibrating device, the vibration device operates with a frequency, and introduces an input of energy into the material for grinding as taught by Wedag; since it has been held the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (MPEP 2143).
Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag does not disclose a frequency between 10 Hz and 150 Hz, and introduces an input of energy between 0.1 kJ/m3 and 10 kJ/m3;
However, Wedag discloses controlling the vibration device in order to have the grinding material density can be derived (paragraph 0010);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the frequency and the input energy as desired, including a frequency between 10 Hz and 150 Hz, and introduces an input of energy between 0.1 kJ/m3 and 10 kJ/m3, in order to have the grinding material density can be derived (Wedag; paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 10, Wedag teaches wherein the vibration device has a regulating device configured to regulate a vibration intensity in accordance with an energy consumed by the vibration device for operation, wherein an increased energy consumption results in a reduction of the vibration intensity and a reduced energy consumption results in an increase in the vibration intensity (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, the modification of Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Wedag teaches wherein the regulating device is further configured to perform regulation in accordance with an energy consumption of a roller drive, wherein an increased energy consumption of the roller drive results in the reduction in the vibration intensity and a reduced energy consumption results in the increase in the vibration intensity (paragraphs 0010-0011).
Therefore, the modification of Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Wedag teaches wherein the vibration device is further configured to be regulated in accordance with a width of the roller gap, wherein a larger gap width results in the increase in the vibration intensity and a smaller gap width results in the reduction in the vibration intensity (paragraphs 0010-0011: the control loop is capable to perfume the vibration intensity with respect to the gap).
Therefore, the modification of Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Otto discloses wherein the vibration device is further configured to be regulated in accordance with a tendency of the floating roller to rotate about a vertical axis (A), wherein the vibration intensity is increased as a rotary oscillation frequency of the floating roller increases, and the vibration intensity is decreased as the rotary oscillation frequency of the floating roller decreases (paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0038).
Therefore, the modification of Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Wedag teaches further comprising: a manual triggering device for the vibration device (paragraph 0013).
Therefore, the modification of Heinz over in view of Otto, Dong and Wedag teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725