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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 uses the phrase “an apparatus for grinding of dry ice granulate connected to the output section of the device of claim 3” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the device of claim 3 is positively claimed or if the claim is directed to an apparatus configured to connect to the device of claim 3. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as though the device of claim 3 is positively claimed.
Claim 4 is indefinite because it does not include a transitional phrase.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorma (DE102009027974) in view of Matsumoto (JPH 0854166).
Re Claim 3, Thorma discloses a device (Fig. 1) for adjusting and metering of dry ice granulate for a device for mixing solid particles of dry ice with a stream of a gaseous medium, comprising:
a body having a granulate input section and a granulate output section (see Fig. 1, illustrated below);
at least two rotary feeding elements (grinding rollers 20, 30) arranged in the body between the granulate input section and the granulate output section (see Fig. 1, illustrated below) for transporting the granulate from the granulate input section to the granulate output section, the at least two rotary feeding elements being parallel to each other (see Fig. 1, illustrated below), and rotatable relative to the direction of passage of the granulate from the granulate input section to the granulate output section (“In Fig. 1, the left roller rotates clockwise and the right roller rotates counterclockwise. The two rollers rotate towards the breaking bar in the area of the dry ice feed.” [0026]), the at least two rotary feeding elements being rotary rollers having recesses around peripheries thereof (see Fig. 1, illustrated below) for transporting the granulate, each two adjacent rows of recesses being offset relative to each other (Fig.1), the recesses of each of the at least two rotary feeding elements being oriented in an axial direction along a length thereof in at least two successive rows (Fig. 1); and
a shearing member (height-adjustable braking bar 100) arranged between the rotatable feeding elements (Fig. 2), the shearing member comprising at least two shearing edges (grinding surfaces 11), each spaced from a respective rotary feeding element by a respective gap (Fig. 1) the size of which is less than the smallest dimension of the granulate to be transported (see MPEP 2115. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).), the shearing edges being positioned at or below a level of a connecting line (OS) of axes of rotation of the feeding members (Fig. 2 of Thorma, illustrated below shows the shearing edges positioned at the connecting line), an angle (y) between the connecting line (OS) of the axes of rotation of the rotary feeding elements and a face of the shearing member being in a range 0 to 45 degrees (see Fig. 2 of Thorma, illustrated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
856
1348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
807
1169
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 and 2 of Thorma, illustrated
Thorma fails to disclose that the shearing member extends from a position below the connecting line (OS) that is further from the granulate input section than the connecting line (OS), and terminates at the shearing edges thereof, which are located at or below the connecting line (OS), and the shearing member is oriented so that the shearing edges thereof face toward the granulate input section.
Matsumoto teaches that the shearing member (ice receiving member 34) extends from a position below the connecting line (OS) that is further from the granulate input section than the connecting line (OS) (see Fig. 3 of Matsumoto, illustrated below), and terminates at the shearing edges thereof, which are located at or below the connecting line (OS), and the shearing member is oriented so that the shearing edges thereof face toward the granulate input section (see Fig. 3 of Matsumoto, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
705
920
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Matsumoto, illustrated
Thorma discloses a shearing member (crushing bar 100) that is height adjustable (“If the crushing bar 100 is moved downwards, the two crushing gap widths between the grinding surfaces 11 of the crushing bar 100 and the grinding surfaces 21, 31 of the rollers 20, 30 decrease” [0032]) in order to change the gap size, but fails to disclose that the shearing member extends from a position on the other side of the connecting line from the input section to edges located on the same side as the rest of the shearing member or at the connecting line. Matsumoto also teaches a shearing member that is height adjustable in order to change the gap size and further teaches the claimed elements not disclosed by Thorma (“The ice receiving member 34 is supported by a height adjustment mechanism 36 and is configured to be adjusted to a position that does not allow the passage of the ice cubes 16 but does allow the passage of crushed ice 16a.” [0014]). The prior art includes each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination in a single prior art reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the elements by re-positioning the crushing bar of Thorma such that it mirrors the current location of the crushing bar across the connecting line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination as predictable because Matsumoto teaches that shearing members positions across the connecting line from the input section are still able be height adjustable to define the size of the sheared ice.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorma in view of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kubis et al. (WO2014182254), hereinafter referred to as “Kubis”, and Hao (CN112705307).
Re Claim 4, Thorma in view of Matsumoto discloses the device according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to disclose
an apparatus for grinding of dry ice granulate connected to the output section of the device of claim 3, comprising
a driven grinding roller connected to a torque source mounted in the body for grinding of the granulate,
a rotary support body arranged in the body parallel to the grinding roller and connected to a regulation for rotating the rotary,
a second grinding roller rotatably mounted in the rotary support body, off-axis of the rotary support body, continually connected via a transmission and the grinding roller to torque source.
Kubis teaches
an apparatus (Fig. 4) for grinding of dry ice granulate is connected to the output section of the device (“The housing 5 of the milling and feeding part is, in this example, also provided by … a flange PI for coupling a container of granulate (not shown)” [0024] and the output section disclosed by Thorma is a container of granulate), comprising
a driven grinding roller (rotative roller 1) connected (“Rotative roller 1 is through its gear 12 driven by the power source 7” [0030]) to a torque source (power source 7) mounted in the body (housing 5) for grinding of the granulate,
a rotary support body (rotative supporting body 2) arranged in the body (“the housing 5 of the milling and feeding part comprises shaft supports of rotative roller 1_, of rotatively arranged supporting body 2, and also means for coupling the shifter 9 of position of the rotatively arranged supporting body 2, so called ‘positioner’” [0023] parallel to the grinding roller (Fig. 3) and connected to a regulation (position shifter 9) for rotating the rotary body (rotative supporting body 2),
a second grinding roller (rotative roller 3) rotatably mounted in the rotary support body (“a rotative roller 3 eccentrically positioned on rotatively arranged supporting body 2” [0018]), off-axis of this body (Fig. 4), continually connected (Fig. 3) via a transmission (via shaft 31, gear 32, housing 5, gear 12, gear 72, and shaft 71) and the grinding roller (rotative roller 1) to the torque source.
Hao teaches using multiple sets of rollers (first level crushing unit 41 and second level crushing unit 42) in order to have a gradual crushing process (“By setting up a multi-stage crushing unit in the machine body, the present invention performs a gradually refined crushing process for materials, avoids the defect that small particle materials of traditional equipment need to be continuously circulated and crushed, and greatly improves the quality and added value of freeze-dried instant powder products. The production efficiency is greatly improved, and the comprehensive energy consumption is reduced by more than 10%.” Pg. 2, Line 25-29)
Hao teaches using multiple crushing units to have a gradual refined crushing process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thorma to incorporate the teachings of Kubis and Hao by attaching the output section of Thorma, which expels granulate, to the flange of Kubis to yield the predictable result of further gradually grinding the dry ice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued:
“It was alleged that the grinding surfaces 11 of the braking bar 100 in Fig. 2 (reproduced below) of Thorma correspond to the claimed shearing edges.
However, the braking bar 100 does not extend from a position below a line that could correspond to the claimed connecting line (OS), and does not have shearing edges (plural) located at terminal regions of the shearing member at or below the connecting line (OS). That is, Thoma does not teach or suggest "the shearing member extends from a position below the connecting line (OS) that is further from the granulate input section than the connecting line (OS), and terminates at the shearing edges thereof, which are located at or below the connecting line (OS), and the shearing member is oriented so that the shearing edges thereof face toward the granulate input section." Thus, Thorma does not anticipate claim 3 and claim 4.”
Claim 3 is identical to old claim 1 except for an additional limitation. Applicant’s argues that the new limitation distinguishes claim 3 from Thorma. As shown in the rejection to claim 3 above, the new limitation distinguishes claim 3 from Thorma. However, the new claim is obvious over Thorma in view of Matsumoto.
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 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 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 29 September 2026
