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 .
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In independent claim 1, scope and meaning of “several circumferential bosses” is unclear as to the upper limit of the number of bosses” present in the press roller.
In claim 2, meaning of modification coefficient increasing gradually” for each recitation of the phrase, do such phrases refer to increasing distance along respective sides of the middle surface of each of the gears or bosses having a gradually increasing modification coefficient?).
In claim 3, it is unclear whether “the modification coefficient” refers to each of the recited modification coefficients of claim 2, and “the modification changes” (thus either increases or decreases) is inconsistent with claim 2 from which claim 3 depends reciting the modification coefficient increasing gradually.
In claim 5, “the tooth width” lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with claim 1 which lacks recitation of either the recited circumferential bosses, or the helical gears arranged on the bosses having teeth.
In claim 6, “the juice discharge groove” (singular) lacks antecedent basis, being inconsistent with recitation in claim 1 of “juice discharge grooves” (plural).
In each of claims 10-18, scope and meaning of “several sugar cane shred press rollers” is unclear as to the upper limit of the number of press rollers” present in the presser, and the initial recitation of “the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim interpretations are herein presented to clarify on the record the limitations recited in each of the noted claims:
In Independent claim 1, “several circumferential bosses” is interpreted as being three or more such bosses present in the press roller.
In each of claims 10-18, scope and meaning of “several sugar cane shred press rollers” is interpreted as being three or more such press rollers in the total “presser”.
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 nonobviousness.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikam patent 5,855,168 in view of Prater et al 5,383,609 and Patent Publication CN 111346693 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of publication ‘693.
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Escapenet translation are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Nikam discloses: A sugar cane shred press roller (column 1, lines 12-18 and column 2, lines 7-22 regarding “crushing mill rolls” and column 3, line 61-column 4, line 8 and column 5, lines 55-59 regarding the rollers being applied with hydraulic pressure), comprising:
a cylindrical roller body 9 (figure3 ), wherein several circumferential bosses are arranged in an axial direction of the cylindrical roller body (projected, circumferential boss sections of circumferential member 7 as shown in figures 5, 7 and 8, and described at column 4, lines 10-13, 14-17 and 35-41 regarding member 7 and column 4, lines 59-61 re there being three feeder rollers, each having a respective boss and each being adjacent to one to more than 3 roll mill modules);
modified cylindrical helical gears 10 with formed on both sides of each of the circumferential bosses (figures 3 and 4 and column 4, lines 25-30); and
annular juice discharge grooves 12, each of the annular juice discharge grooves is formed between every two adjacent circumferential bosses of the several circumferential bosses (figures 3, 5 and 6 and described at column 4, lines 25-34 as being radial slots or openings) .
Claim 1, and claims dependent therefrom differ by requiring the helical gears on opposite sides of the bosses, as having opposite modification coefficients.
Publication ‘693 teaches a spiral roller crusher or pressure roller system as shown in figures 1-4 and described in the Translation: including at [0003] as the system having spiral gears or teeth sections 5 having wedge sections of triangular or other geometric shape, optionally having smooth curved surfaces [0005], which may be spirally wound along the axial direction [0009], the teeth having a helical structure, thus adjacent gears or sets of helical crushing teeth having a shearing effect on material being crushed, or [0025].
Figures 1 and 4 of ‘693 illustrate the helical gears 3 and 4 as having oppositely widening sections or opposite modification coefficients on either side of projecting bosses of the gears
The publication at [0025] describes the effect of such gear configuration as producing a beneficial shearing effect on material being treated, enabling axial crushing and thrust and radial compression of the material.
It would have thus been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of designing pressure roller systems to have modified the system of Nikam by providing the helical gears to have opposite modification coefficients formed on both sides of the bosses, as taught by ‘693, to enable a beneficial shearing effect on material being treated, enabling axial crushing and thrust and radial compression of the material, thus, more finely and completely shredding the sugar cane.
For claims 2 and 3, publication ‘293 further teaches wherein each of the modified cylindrical helical gears takes a middle surface of a tooth width as a reference point, and one side of the middle surface is positively modified to a positively modified tooth profile end, with the modification coefficient increasing gradually, while another side of the middle surface is negatively modified to a negatively modified tooth profile end, with the modification coefficient increasing gradually, for claims 2 and 3, (all shown in figures 1 and 4 and as described at [0025].
However ‘693 is silent as to wherein the modification coefficient increases or changes uniformly and linearly, and the modification coefficient ranges from - 1.5 to +1.5 for claim 3.
Such modification coefficient values are however deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to optimize the beneficial shearing effect on material being treated, enabling axial crushing and thrust and radial compression of the material, thus, more finely and completely shredding the sugar cane.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 4, Nikam teaches wherein a diameter of each of the circumferential bosses is equal to a diameter of a big end of each of the modified cylindrical helical gears (clearly illustrated in figure 3).
For claim 6, Nikam teaches wherein the circumferential bosses and the juice discharge groove fit with each other in shape (illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 6).
For claim 7, Nikam teaches wherein the several circumferential bosses are uniformly distributed at equal intervals (clearly illustrated in figures 3, 4 and 6).
For claim 8, Nikam teaches wherein the roller body, the modified cylindrical helical gears and the circumferential bosses are integrally formed (column 1, lines 12-18 and column 2, lies 58-67 regarding forming of “modules”, hence integrally combined or formed combinations of rolls and roll components
For each of claims 10-13 and 15-17, Nikam further teaches: A presser, comprising several sugar cane shred press rollers according to claims 1-4 and 6-8, respectively, wherein axes of the several sugar cane shred press rollers are spatially parallel with each other, the circumferential bosses and the juice discharge grooves of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers fit with each other and have gaps left, and
the modified cylindrical helical gears of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers are meshed with each other (all clearly illustrated in the embodiment of figure 8 as described at column 4, lines 59-67).
Claims 5, 9, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikam patent 5,855,168 in view of Patent Publication CN 111346693 and the accompanying Escapenet English translation of publication ‘693 as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-18 above, and further in view of Prater et al patent 5,383,609 (Prater).
Claim 5, and claim 14 dependent therefrom, differ by requiring wherein the tooth width of each of the modified cylindrical helical gears (1) is not greater than 100 mm, and a width of the juice discharge groove (2) is less than 30 mm. Nikam is silent regarding component dimensions, although suggesting apparatus use for the conventional sugar cane industry (column 1, lines 4-10 and column 2, lines 7-15), and suggests compactness (column 6, lines 45-48 “…prepared cane/bagasse in compact form”).
Prater teaches a mill roller system for processing and pulverizing vegetable fiber materials with a cylindrical roller body having press rollers 6A and 6B (figure 1, Abstract and column 3, lines 4-14), the rollers having teeth or “bosses” of wave-shaped cross-section (column 3, lines 27-29). Prater teaches such teeth having a width parameter of 38 mm and spacing of 0.4 mm (column 3, lines 43-47), hence suggesting other components of the milling roller having dimensions of the instantly claimed mm size range.
Additionally, such gear and discharge groove width values are deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the size of the sleeve of the apparatus and accompanying container to a particular application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have sized the width of the teeth and grooves of Nikam to be less than 100 mm and 30 mm, respectively, as suggested by Prater, to facilitate achieving the objective of Nikam of optimizing “compactness” (Nikam at column 6, lines 45-48 “…prepared cane/bagasse in compact form”).
Otherwise, for claim 14, Nikam teaches A presser, comprising several sugar cane shred press rollers according to claim 5, wherein axes of the several sugar cane shred press rollers are spatially parallel with each other, the circumferential bosses and the juice discharge grooves of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers fit with each other and have gaps left, and the modified cylindrical helical gears of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers are meshed with each other (all clearly illustrated in the embodiment of figure 8 as described at column 4, lines 59-67).
Claim 9, and claim 18 dependent therefrom, differ by requiring wherein the modulus of the helical gears ranges between 3 and 8 mm.
Prater teaches a mill roller system for processing and pulverizing vegetable fiber materials with a cylindrical roller body having press rollers 6A and 6B (figure 1, Abstract and column 3, lines 4-14), the rollers having teeth or “bosses” of wave-shaped cross-section (column 3, lines 27-29). Prater teaches such teeth having a width parameter of 38 mm and spacing of 0.4 mm (column 3, lines 43-47), hence suggesting other components of the milling roller having dimensions, including modulus of the helical gears, of the instantly claimed mm size range.
Such helical gear modulus dimension value is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to adapt the size of the sleeve of the apparatus and accompanying container to a particular application. The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
Thus, it would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have sized the modulus of the helical gears to range between 3 and 8 mm, as suggested by Prater, to facilitate achieving the objective of Nikam of optimizing “compactness” (Nikam at column 6, lines 45-48 “…prepared cane/bagasse in compact form”).
Otherwise, for claim 18, Nikam teaches “A presser, comprising several sugar cane shred press rollers according to claim 9, wherein axes of the several sugar cane shred press rollers are spatially parallel with each other, the circumferential bosses and the juice discharge grooves of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers fit with each other and have gaps left, and
the modified cylindrical helical gears of the adjacent sugar cane shred press rollers are meshed with each other (all clearly illustrated in the embodiment of figure 8, as described at column 4, lines 59-67).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Of interest, publication GB 2,230,972 teaches a sugar cane mill roller system utilizing discharge groove channels in the form of “V” groups formed circumferentially on a roller body.
Also, patent publication CN 101589158 teaches a mill for extracting sugar cane juice from a sheet of products, wherein said mill comprises at least two pressing cylinders (2) rotating in opposite directions for driving and pressing the product sheet at a compression area for pressing and discharging the juice, and a downstream outlet area of said product sheet, wherein at least one of the two cylinders may comprise peripheral annular grooves for the flow of extracted juice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 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 encourage to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. 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/apply/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.
JWD
09/22/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights