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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 and 9-15 in the reply filed on March 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 8 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makida et al. (US 8,727,762) in view of Meidhof (US 2015/0149125).
Regarding claim 1, Makida et al. teach a die comprising: a first nozzle group in which a plurality of nozzles are next to one another in a first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5; col. 4, lines 37-54; col. 6, lines 31-col. 7, line 7); a nozzle support portion having a front surface on which the plurality of nozzles are arranged (Figure 1; col. 6, lines 31-38), a back surface opposite to the front surface (Figure 1), and a first opening communicating with each of the plurality of nozzles of the first nozzle group (Figure 1; the entrance to the die plate (1); col. 1, lines 13-35); and a heat-carrier flow channel arranged on both sides of the first nozzle group in transparent plan view viewed from the front surface side and enabling a heat carrier to pass through in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 (4) (5) (8)), wherein each of the plurality of nozzles of the first nozzle group includes: a first portion having a first nozzle opening diameter; and a second portion arranged between the first portion and the first opening and having a nozzle opening diameter becoming narrower when getting closer to the first portion (Figure 1), the plurality of nozzles include: a first end nozzle arranged on either one end of arrangement of the plurality of nozzles in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5); and a first non-end nozzle next to the first end nozzle in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5).
Makida et al. do not teach a length of the first portion of the first end nozzle is smaller than a length of the first portion of the first non-end nozzle.
However, Meidhof (Abstract; Figures 1, 4-7 and 9; paragraphs [0020], [0026]-[0030], [0032] – uniform granule size/reducing pellet weight variation; [0035] – uniform flow rate; [0036] – adjust length and thus the hydraulic resistance produced by the bores; [0040], [0041]-[0050], [0055]-[0059] – speed/flow rate; [0070]-[0078], [0088], [0089]-[0093], [0098], [0101]-[0106], [0109] – [0111] – shorter length for the end nozzle; [0120]-[0129]) teach an analogous die wherein a length of corresponding portions is selected, as required, to ensure a uniform discharge rate/speed through each orifice, including utilizing a smaller/shorter length as claimed.
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 combined the teaching of Makida et al. and Meidhof and to have utilized a length of the first portion of the first end nozzle that is smaller than a length of the first portion of the first non-end nozzle in the die of Makida et al., as suggested by Meidhof, for the purpose, as suggested by Meidhof of ensuring a uniform discharge rate/speed through each orifice of the die. Meidhof further teaches that the length of the corresponding portions of a die impacts the discharge rate/speed and uniformity of the produced granule and suggests adjusting the lengths of different portions, as required, to achieve a uniform rate. As such, Meidhof further teach the length is a result effective variable that would have been readily optimized in the corresponding portions of the die in order to achieve a uniform discharge rate/speed and uniform granule size. This corresponds with the reasons set forth in the application for arriving at the claimed length (e.g. see paragraphs [0043] and [0044] of the published application).
As to claim 2, Makida et al. teach a second end nozzle arranged as claimed (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5). In combination with the teaching of Meidhof as set forth above, the second end nozzle is smaller/shorter as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 3, Makida et al. teach a circular support portion and circumferential arrangement as claimed (Figure 2).
As to claims 4-6, Makida et al. teach and suggest additional nozzle groups and heat-carrier supplying flow channels as claimed (Figures 1-7).
As to claim 7, the combination teaches and suggests the length of the claimed portions would read upon the claimed lengths and further suggest optimizing the lengths as required to achieve a uniform flow of material through each channel/nozzle/orifice/bore. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Regarding claim 9, Makida et al. teach and suggest a granulator comprising a cylindrical extrusion portion, a die attached to a tip of the extrusion portion and a cutter attached to a tip of the die as is conventional in the art (Abstract; col. 1, lines 5-67; col. 6, lines 32-37), wherein the die includes a first nozzle group in which a plurality of nozzles are next to one another in a first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5; col. 4, lines 37-54; col. 6, lines 31-col. 7, line 7); a nozzle support portion having a front surface on which the plurality of nozzles are arranged (Figure 1; col. 6, lines 31-38), a back surface opposite to the front surface (Figure 1), and a first opening communicating with each of the plurality of nozzles of the first nozzle group (Figure 1; the entrance to the die plate (1); col. 1, lines 13-35); and a heat-carrier flow channel arranged on both sides of the first nozzle group in transparent plan view viewed from the front surface side and enabling a heat carrier to pass through in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 (4) (5) (8)), wherein each of the plurality of nozzles of the first nozzle group includes: a first portion having a first nozzle opening diameter; and a second portion arranged between the first portion and the first opening and having a nozzle opening diameter becoming narrower when getting closer to the first portion (Figure 1), the plurality of nozzles include: a first end nozzle arranged on either one end of arrangement of the plurality of nozzles in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5); and a first non-end nozzle next to the first end nozzle in the first direction (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5).
Makida et al. do not teach a length of the first portion of the first end nozzle is smaller than a length of the first portion of the first non-end nozzle.
However, Meidhof (Abstract; Figures 1, 4-7 and 9; paragraphs [0020], [0026]-[0030], [0032] – uniform granule size/reducing pellet weight variation; [0035] – uniform flow rate; [0036] – adjust length and thus the hydraulic resistance produced by the bores; [0040], [0041]-[0050], [0055]-[0059] – speed/flow rate; [0070]-[0078], [0088], [0089]-[0093], [0098], [0101]-[0106], [0109] – [0111] – shorter length for the end nozzle; [0120]-[0129]) teach an analogous die wherein a length of corresponding portions is selected, as required, to ensure a uniform discharge rate/speed through each orifice, including utilizing a smaller/shorter length as claimed.
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 combined the teaching of Makida et al. and Meidhof and to have utilized a length of the first portion of the first end nozzle that is smaller than a length of the first portion of the first non-end nozzle in the die of Makida et al., as suggested by Meidhof, for the purpose, as suggested by Meidhof of ensuring a uniform discharge rate/speed through each orifice of the die. Meidhof further teaches that the length of the corresponding portions of a die impacts the discharge rate/speed and uniformity of the produced granule and suggests adjusting the lengths of different portions, as required, to achieve a uniform rate. As such, Meidhof further teach the length is a result effective variable that would have been readily optimized in the corresponding portions of the die in order to achieve a uniform discharge rate/speed and uniform granule size. This corresponds with the reasons set forth in the application for arriving at the claimed length (e.g. see paragraphs [0043] and [0044] of the published application).
As to claim 10, Makida et al. teach a second end nozzle arranged as claimed (Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5). In combination with the teaching of Meidhof as set forth above, the second end nozzle is smaller/shorter as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 11, Makida et al. teach a circular support portion and circumferential arrangement as claimed (Figure 2).
As to claims 12-14, Makida et al. teach and suggest additional nozzle groups and heat-carrier supplying flow channels as claimed (Figures 1-7).
As to claim 15, the combination teaches and suggests the length of the claimed portions would read upon the claimed lengths and further suggest optimizing the lengths as required to achieve a uniform flow of material through each channel/nozzle/orifice/bore. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references disclose analogous dies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights