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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 maintain rejected.
In view of the amendment, filed on 03/23/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 09/24/2025.
Objection to claims 4, 7, and 9
Rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejection of claims 1 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Treffer et al. (US 2016/0185012)
New Grounds of Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treffer et al. (US 2016/0185012).
Treffer et al. (US ‘012) disclose an apparatus for manufacturing pellets (equivalent to an extrusion apparatus), and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs [0068]-[0129] and Figures 1-13 of the description).
As to claim 1, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) discloses an apparatus for producing pellets selected from the group consisting of food pellets, plastic pellets, dietary supplement pellets, and pharmaceutical pellets, 1.c., for the continuous production of solid food supplements or pharmaceutical preparations. The extrusion apparatus comprising:
a perforated plate (104) (equivalent to an extrusion die), the perforated plate (104) comprising at least one orifice (106) having specific cross-sectional dimensions and shape;
a cutter (108), arranged in front of the orifices (106) and comprising pelletizing blades (1002), wherein the pelletizing blade (1002) is configured to cut pellets from the material strands exiting the orifices (106);
PNG
media_image1.png
370
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
430
304
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A cooling fluid outlet (outlet generating the cooling fluid 108) configured to guide a flow of cooling fluid onto the orifice in a vertical or angled direction (p 17,119 - p 31,130 and fig 1-12); and a transportation fluid outlet configured to guide a flow of transportation fluid.
Treffer et al. (US ‘012) is silent on explicitly disclosing the flow of transportation fluid laterally passed over the die in front of the orifice, as claimed in claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a flow of transportation fluid, as taught by Treffer et al. (US ‘012), so to laterally passes over the die in front of the orifice in order to more efficiently provide an interaction between viscosity forces and surface forces which results in improving the produced food products. Further, it should be noted that such limitations are more directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be utilized and therefore it is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.
As to claim 4, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) teach the cooling fluid outlet (108) for the cooling air and/or the transportation air comprise a nozzle. (see ¶ [0084])
As to claim 5, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) disclose the direction of the material strand exiting the orifice (106) is aligned to the main axis of the extrusion apparatus (104).
As to claim 6, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) teach the cutter (108) is a rotating cutter configured to rotate around an axis is aligned to the main axis of the extruder (108) and having one or more radially oriented pelletizing knives (1002).
As to claim 7, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) disclose the direction of the material strand exiting the orifice (106) is radial to a main axis of the extrusion apparatus (104).
As to claim 8, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) teach the cutter (108) is a rotating cutter configured to rotate around an axis is aligned to the main axis of the extruder (108) and having one or more axially oriented pelletizing knives (1002) that are tilted with respect to their tangential direction of movement.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treffer et al. (US 2016/0185012) in view of Gasior et al. (US 3,753,637).
As to claims 2-3 and 9, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) discloses means to generate a flow of transportation fluid through a fluid outlet (implicit) such that the flow of transportation fluid (180) laterally passes over the die in front of the orifice (106); however, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) fail to disclose an additional means to generate an additional flow of cooling fluid through a fluid outlet onto the cutter at a position removed from the orifice, as claimed in claims 2-3 and 9.
In the analogous art, Gasior et al. (US ‘637) discloses a cooling-knife type hot-melt granulator, and specifically discloses the following technical feature (see columns 2-5 of the description, Figures 1-5) the apparatus further comprises an additional device for generating an additional cooling fluid flow through a fluid outlet onto the blade 55 (corresponding to the cutter) at a position removed from the orifices. The technical feature in Gasior et al. (US ‘637) serves the same function as in the present invention in solving its technical problem, namely, for cooling the cutter. In other words, Gasior et al. (US ‘637) provides a technical teaching. As for the specific direction in which the fluid is introduced, a vertical or angled direction is likewise a conventional arrangement.
PNG
media_image3.png
312
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Gasior et al. (US ‘637) teach an additional cooling fluid outlet configured to guide an additional flow of cooling fluid onto the cutter at a position removed from the orifice. (See Fig. 3)
As to claim 3, Gasior et al. (US ‘637) disclose further comprising a source of fluid pressure and/or fluid ducts connected to the cooling fluid outlet and the additional cooling fluid outlet. (See Fig. 3)
As to claim 9, Gasior et al. (US ‘637) disclose the cutter, the cooling fluid outlet the additional cooling fluid outlet are arranged on a common movable carrier that allows movement of the cutter, the cooling fluid outlet, and the additional cooling fluid outlet in front of the die between an idle position, removed from the orifice, and an operative position, where a cooling air flow is directed onto the orifice when in operation, and where the cutter pelletizes the material strand exiting the orifice when in operation. (See Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the extrusion apparatus as taught by Treffer et al. (US ‘012), through providing an additional means to generate an additional flow of cooling fluid through a fluid outlet onto the cutter at a position removed from the orifice in order to in order to maximize contact of the coolant with the blades and to utilize centrifugal force through the remainder of the revolution toward the die face to fling off excess coolant, as suggested by Gasior et al. (US ‘637): col. 1, lines 56-59.
As to claim 10, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) disclose the cooling air flow is directed into the pelletizing knives (1002) of the cutter (108) at the operative position where the cutter (108) pelletizes the material strand.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Treffer et al. (US 2016/0185012) in view of Yoshinobu et al. (JP H07249538), the prior art submitted by Applicant.
As to claims 11, 12, and 13, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) disclose the cooling fluid (108) is configured to flow along a cooling flow axis, and the material strand is configured to be extruded through the at least one orifice via an exit axis, however, fail to disclose the cooling flow axis is oriented at an angle of less than 60° relative to the exit axis, as claimed in claim 11, also fail to disclose the cooling flow axis and the exit axis are substantially anti-parallel, as claimed in claim 12, and further, fail to disclose the cooling flow axis and the exit axis are substantially colinear, as claimed in claim 13.
In the analogous art, Yoshinobu et al. (JP ‘538) disclose the cooling fluid is configured to flow along a cooling flow axis, and the material strand is configured to be extruded through at least one orifice along an outlet axis, wherein the cooling flow axis is oriented at an angle relative to the outlet axis. An orientation of the cooling flow axis relative to the outlet axis at an angle of less than 60°, less than 45°, or less than 30° is a conventional parameter setting.
PNG
media_image4.png
234
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yoshinobu et al. (JP ‘538) disclose the cooling fluid is configured to flow along a cooling flow axis, and the material strand is configured to be extruded through the at least one orifice via an exit axis, wherein the cooling flow axis is oriented at an angle of less than 60° relative to the exit axis, as claimed in claim 11, and the cooling flow axis and the exit axis are substantially anti-parallel, as claimed in claim 12, and moreover, the cooling flow axis and the exit axis are substantially colinear, as claimed in claim 13.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to modify the means to generate a flow of cooling fluid through a fluid outlet, as taught by Treffer et al. (US ‘012), through orienting a cooling flow axis to be at an angle of less than 60° relative to the exit axis or through orienting a cooling flow axis and the exit axis to be substantially anti-parallel or through orienting cooling flow axis and the exit axis to be substantially colinear in order to improve the workability of the apparatus through increasing the molding speed which greatly contributes to the mass productivity, as suggested by Yoshinobu et al. (JP ‘538): see ¶ [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 03/23/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments that the newly added limitations to claim 1 is not covered by the cited prior art of Treffer et al. (US ‘012) was not found persuasive.
As it has been clarified above in the body of the rejection, Treffer et al. (US ‘012) is silent on explicitly disclosing the flow of transportation fluid laterally passed over the die in front of the orifice, as claimed in claim 1. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a flow of transportation fluid, as taught by Treffer et al. (US ‘012), so to laterally passes over the die in front of the orifice in order to more efficiently provide an interaction between viscosity forces and surface forces which results in improving the produced food products. Further, it should be noted that such limitations are more directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be utilized and therefore it is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.
Therefore, rejections of claims 1-13 are appropriately maintained for the reasons discussed above in the body of the rejection.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 04/04/2026
Prosecution Insights