DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim 1-4, 12, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harbold (US 20130277481) in view of Druckenmiller (WO 2014071173).
Regarding claim 1, Harbold discloses a grinding roll (Fig. 1-9) comprising
a roll body (20) having a cylindrical outer surface extending axially between a pair of opposite ends; and
a side groove (44) formed at each end of the roll body, the side groove including a support shoulder (46) recessed from the cylindrical outer surface and/or from surfaces of the opposite ends of the roll body;
an edge ring (52) including a plurality of spaced receiving cavities (60); and
a plurality of wear members (64) each received and retained in at least one of the receiving cavities of the edge ring, wherein the wear members are positioned along the edge ring to define an edge of the grinding roll, wherein the edge ring is received within each side groove.
Harbold fails to disclose wherein each of the wear members has an angled outer surface to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body, wherein the angled outer surface of each of the wear members slopes in a direction from the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body towards the end of the roll body.
Druckenmiller teaches a similar roll comprising a roll body (300 – Fig. 8, 9) and plurality of wear members (350) wherein each of the wear members has an angled outer surface (363) to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body, wherein the angled outer surface of each of the wear members slopes in a direction from the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body towards the end of the roll body.(see Fig. 8-9: examiner notes that “slope” doesn’t have a direction as shown in Fig. 8-9, the wear member slopes from the outer surface toward the roll body)
Druckenmiller also teaches that the angled outer surface is provided in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of Harbold’s wear members so that they have an angled outer surface as taught by Druckenmiller as stated above in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Harbold teaches the grinding roll according to claim 1, wherein the edge ring is formed from a plurality of edge ring segments (see Fig. 3: some edge ring portions 52 are assembled and one ring portion 52 is not. Therefore, there are multiple edge ring segments).
Regarding claim 3, modified Harbold teaches the grinding roll according to claim 1, wherein the side grooves (44) are arranged to provide the support shoulders recessed from each of the opposite end surfaces of the roll body. (see Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 4, modified Harbold teaches the grinding roll according to claim 1, wherein the side grooves are arranged to provide the support shoulders recessed from the cylindrical outer surface as well as from each opposite end surface of the roll body. (see Fig. 3, 5)
Regarding claim 12, Harbold discloses a grinding assembly (Fig. 1-8) for comminution of material, comprising generally parallel first and second grinding rolls (12, 14) arranged to rotate in opposite directions, towards each other, and separated by a gap (nip), wherein each of the first and second grinding rolls comprises:
a roll body (20) having a cylindrical outer surface extending axially between a pair of opposite ends;
a side groove (44) formed at each end of the roll body, the side groove including a support shoulder (46) recessed from the cylindrical outer surface and/or from surfaces of the opposite ends of the roll body;
an edge ring (52) received within each side groove and including a plurality of spaced receiving cavities (60); and
a plurality of wear members (64) each wear member being received and retained in at least one of the receiving cavities of the edge ring, wherein the wear members are positioned along the edge ring to define an edge of the grinding roll, wherein the first grinding roll comprises a flange ring (24) at each opposite end, said flanges each having an outer edge that extends radially past the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body.
Harbold fails to disclose wherein the plurality of wear members of each of the first and second grinding rolls is arranged to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the respective roll body, wherein the wear protecting surface provided by the wear members of the first grinding roll slopes in a direction from the end of the roll body towards a center of the roll body and wherein the wear protecting surface provided by the wear members of the second grinding roll slopes radially in a direction from the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body towards the end of the roll body, and wherein the plurality of wear members comprises the angled wear protection surface of the first and second grinding rolls.
Druckenmiller teaches a similar roll comprising a roll body (300 – Fig. 8, 9) and plurality of wear members (350) wherein each of the wear members has an angled outer surface (363) to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body, wherein the angled outer surface of each of the wear members slopes in a direction from the end of the roll body towards the end of the roll body.(see Fig. 8-9: examiner notes that “slope” doesn’t have a direction as shown in Fig. 8-9, the wear member slopes from the outer surface toward the roll body). Druckenmiller also teaches that the angled outer surface is provided in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of Harbold’s wear members of each of the first and second grinding rolls so that they each have an angled outer surface as taught by Druckenmiller as stated above in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”).
Regarding claim 21, Harbold discloses a grinding roll (Fig. 1-8) comprising
a roll body (20) having a cylindrical outer surface extending axially between a pair of opposite ends; and
a side groove (44) formed at each end of the roll body, the side groove including a support shoulder (46) recessed from the cylindrical outer surface and/or from surfaces of the opposite ends of the roll body;
an edge ring (52) including a plurality of spaced receiving cavities (60); and
a plurality of wear members (64) each received and retained in at least one of the receiving cavities of the edge ring, wherein the wear members are positioned along the edge ring to define an edge of the grinding roll, wherein the edge ring is received within each side groove, wherein the grinding roll further comprises a flange ring (24) arranged adjacent the edge ring and attached to an end surfaces of the roll body and/or to the edge ring, the flange ring having an outer edge that extends radially past the outer surface of the roll body.
Harbold fails to disclose wherein each of the wear members has an angled outer surface such to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body, wherein the angled outer surface of each of the wear members partially protrudes with respect to the cylindrical outer surface of the grinding roll and slopes in a direction towards a center of the roll body.
Druckenmiller teaches a similar roll comprising a roll body (300 – Fig. 8, 9) and plurality of wear members (350) wherein each of the wear members partially protrudes with respect to the cylindrical outer surface of the grinding roll and has an angled outer surface (363) to provide a wear protecting surface which is angled in relation to the cylindrical outer surface of the roll body, wherein the angled outer surface of each of the wear members slopes in a direction towards the end of the roll body.(see Fig. 8-9: examiner notes that “slope” doesn’t have a direction as shown in Fig. 8-9, the wear member slopes from the outer surface toward the roll body) Druckenmiller also teaches that the angled outer surface is provided in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of Harbold’s wear members so that they have an angled outer surface as taught by Druckenmiller as stated above in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges. (“A chamfer 363 may be provided to an upper portion of the lip 365 and/or bridge portion 362, in order to accommodate high side loads experienced near roller edges 310.”).
Regarding claim 22, modified Harbold teaches the grinding roll according to claim 21, wherein the flange ring is formed from a plurality of flange ring sections (24- see Fig. 3) positioned adjacent to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose “slope in a direction towards the end of the roll body” for claim 1 and similarly for claims 12, 21.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the “slope” does not have a direction. It does not say it has a down slope or upward slope for example. Therefore, because the prior art shows a slope that slopes from the edge to the center of the roll, it reads on the claim limitations.
.Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art teaches that the angled wear protection surface of first roll body and the second roll body have different direction of slopes as described in claim 13.
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 BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 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 on (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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights