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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 8/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Schroers fails to expressly disclose or make obvious the claimed features of claim 18. This is not found persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues that Schroers provides smooth rolls and does not disclose crushing element. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that crushing elements are surfaces of the roller and surfaces of 18, 20.
Applicant also argues that peripheral elements 18, 20 are not measured. Examiner agrees with the argument that element 18,20 are not measured. However, the claimed limitation, “in order to monitor a condition of the crushing elements” does not mean that it has to monitor entire surfaces of the roller, surfaces of 18, 20. It requires that “a condition” to be monitored.
Also, examiner adds alternative 103 rejection that reads on claim 18 which is an additional evidence that the special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art/arts.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“roller Machine” should be “roller machine”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a maintenance removing system, by which the radar unit can easily be removed out of the crusher frame,” in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“the maintenance removing system” is interpreted to be “a gliding system” and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 26-27 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26, 27 recite the limitation “in particular…”. It is unclear if the limitation after “in particular..” is part of the claim or not.
The term “easily” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-21, 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Schroers (WO 2020260307).
Regarding claim 18, Schroers discloses a roller Machine (Fig. 1-3) for crushing or compacting feed material (see abstract), comprising: at least one roll (12) having a plurality of crushing elements (surface of the roller includes elements 18, 20, and outer radial surface of roller 12 that contacts the feed material. Notice no structure is claimed here.) radar measuring device”) operable to emit a radar beam (microwaves) onto the outer surface of the at least one roll ( a radar measuring device (microwaves in the range of 1-300 GHz). In the following, the measuring method is understood to mean both the optical measuring method, the laser measuring method and the radar measuring method. In the case of radar measurement, the measuring device is, for example, attached at a known distance from the surface of the grinding roller, preferably above the grinding roller. The layer height is preferably determined in a lateral edge area of the grinding roller by means of an optical measuring method or radar measurement. It is also conceivable that, in particular by means of radar measurement, a surface area is recorded which extends, for example, over the entire width and length of the grinding roller or only over a part of the grinding roller, for example the end area. With such a radar measurement, the surface of the ground material on the grinding roller is recorded over an area and, for example, the highest value of the layer height is determined in this area. For example, a plurality of measuring devices are provided, which are attached over the circumference above the surface of the grinding roller, for example evenly spaced from one another, in order to preferably detect a surface area of the grinding roller and to determine the layer height in this area, preferably flat. For example, the height of the grist is determined at a large number of individual, mutually spaced measuring points, from which a 2D image of the grist surface is determined, for example by means of interpolation. The measuring methods for determining the layer height are a simple and reliable way of determining the layer height while the roller mill is in operation.), in order to monitor a condition of the crushing elements (examiner under BRI interprets that the crushing elements are outer surfaces of the roller including outer radial surface of 12 and 20. Measuring a condition of the radial surface of roller 12 can constitue measuring a condition of that combined surface. “a condition” does not necessarily require separate measurements of both surfaces)
Regarding claim 19, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 18, wherein: the at least one roll comprises a first roll (12) and a second roll (14); the at least one radar unit comprises a first radar unit (62 as described above) operable to direct a first radar beam onto the outer surface of the first roll and a second radar unit (“For example, the control device 66 compares the value of the layer height of the ground material on the grinding roller 12, 14 transmitted by means of the first measuring device 62 with a previously determined limit value of the layer height that is stored in the control device 66. The control device 66 is preferably designed and set up in such a way that it reduces the distance between the respective scraper element 42, 44 and the surface of the respective grinding roller 12, 14 when the determined layer height of the previously determined limit value is exceeded. To this end, the control device 66 transmits, for example, a control signal to the electric motor or to the brackets 38, 40, so that the brackets 38, 40 and the scraper elements 42, 44 fixedly attached to them move in the direction of the grinding roller 12, 14, in particular in the direction of the Grinding roller surface, are moved and the distance between the scraper elements 42, 44 and the surface of the grinding roller 12, 14 is reduced. The previously determined limit value for the layer height is, for example, 2mm to 10mm, in particular 4mm to 8mm, preferably 5mm. The control device 66 is preferably designed and set up such that it increases the distance between the respective scraper element 42, 44 and the surface of the respective grinding roller 12, 14 when the determined layer height falls below the previously determined limit value. An increased layer thickness of ground material on the grinding roller 12, 14 indicates wear of the scraper element 42, 44, with a reduction in the distance between the scraper element 42, 44 and the surface of the grinding roller corresponding to a wear readjustment of the scraper element 42, 44, so that the wear of the Stripper elements 42, 44 is compensated.” This indicates that even though Fig. 3 only shows that roller 12 has the sensor 62, the roller 14 also has the sensor 62 since the controller 66 compares the values of sensor 62) operable to direct a second radar beam onto the outer surface of the second roll.
Regarding claim 20, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 19, wherein a crushing gap (16) is defined between the first roll and the second roll and the first radar unit and/or the second radar unit are positioned spaced apart from the gap. (“ In the case of radar measurement, the measuring device is, for example, attached at a known distance from the surface of the grinding roller, preferably above the grinding roller”)
Regarding claim 21, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 19, further comprising: a crusher frame (“a machine frame”), in which the first and second roll are rotatable received (“the grinding rollers 12, 14 in particular being mounted on the machine frame” and “. The first measuring device 62 is attached, for example, to the machine frame described above and is arranged in a stationary manner relative to the rotatable grinding rollers 12, 14.”); the first radar unit and/or a second radar unit arranged within the crusher frame in a top position 90° rotated to the crushing gap (“ In the case of radar measurement, the measuring device is, for example, attached at a known distance from the surface of the grinding roller, preferably above the grinding roller” above the roller is 90 degree rotated to the crushing gap since the rollers as side by side) or at a lateral outer side 180° diametral to the crushing gap or at any position in between the 90° position and the 180° position.
Regarding claim 23, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 18, wherein an autogenous layer (“a first measuring device 62 for determining the layer thickness of the grist adhering to the surface of the grinding roller.” Here, the layer of grist is the autogenous layer on the surface of 12) is formed in between the crushing elements (between 18, 20) from the crushing process, the at least one radar unit being operable to measure a thickness of the autogenous layer above the outer surface of the at least one roll.
Regarding claim 24, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 18, wherein the at least one radar unit features a monostatic, bistatic or a multistatic antenna layout (inherently, a radar unit requires at least one antenna to receive the radar beam).
Regarding claim 25, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 18, wherein the at least one radar unit is operated in surface of the grinding roller, for example evenly spaced from one another, in order to preferably detect a surface area of the grinding roller and to determine the layer height in this area, preferably flat. For example, the height of the grist is determined at a large number of individual, mutually spaced measuring points, from which a 2D image of the grist surface is determined, for example by means of interpolation. The measuring methods for determining the layer height are a simple and reliable way of determining the layer height while the roller mill is in operation.” This means that the signal is processed to get the layer height.)
Regarding claim 26, Schroers discloses the roller Machine according to claim 19, wherein the first radar unit and/or the second radar unit forms a multistatic radar sensor or bistatic or a monostatic radar sensor with a scanner unit (inherently, a radar unit requires at least one radar sensor with a scanner). to scan the radar beam across the outer surface of the respective roll in an axis direction (“It is also conceivable that, in particular by means of radar measurement, a surface area is recorded which extends, for example, over the entire width and length of the grinding roller”), in particular across an entire width of the respective roll, while the outer surface is circumferentially moved due to the rotating of the respective roll about the axis direction (this would happen as the roller is rotated).
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 18, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dilly (WO 2008090016) in view of Raaz (WO 2019034691).
Regarding claim 18, Dilly discloses a roller Machine (Fig. 1-3) for crushing or compacting feed material (4), comprising: at least one roll (1, 2) having a plurality of crushing elements (11) and/or edge protection elements (14) on an outer surface of the at least one roll;
The sensor 30 is expediently designed as a non-contact sensor, in particular as an inductive displacement sensor.”)
Dilly fails to disclose the sensor being at least one radar unit operable to emit a radar beam onto the outer surface of the at least one roll… on the outer surface by measurement by the radar beam reflected at least by the crushing elements and/or of the edge protection elements.
Raaz teaches a system (Fig. 1-3) for determining the wear of material removing elements (1) arranged on blades (10) on a rotating wheel (11) comprising a radar (15) operable to emit a radar beam (13) onto the outer surface of the rotating wheel… on the outer surface by measurement by the radar beam reflected at least by the blades and the removing elements (“In order to ensure the function of the system, it is therefore important to align the receiving unit, which is formed approximately radially to the impeller, thus ensuring that the tips of the teeth have the smallest distance to the sensors and form the larger radar reflection surface” -This is how a radar measures. It bounces off radar beam on surface).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the sensor of Dilly with the radar of Raaz in order to successfully detect a missing stud from a distance. ((B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141 Section III)
Regarding claim 22, modified Dilly teaches the roller Machine according to claim 18, wherein: the crushing elements are formed by stud elements (11) extending above the outer surface of the at least one roll; and the at least one radar unit (13, Raaz) is operable to measure a presence and/or a height of the stud elements extending above the outer surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 discloses or render obvious “The roller Machine according to claim 21, wherein the at least one radar unit is received in a maintenance removing system, by which the radar unit can easily be removed out of the crusher frame, in particular by a sliding movement.”. examiner notes that the maintenance removing system as interpreted under 112f is a gliding system or equivalents thereof. Therefore, the claim is indicated allowable.
Conclusion
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
