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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
37 CFR 1.84 (q) says “Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake.” Figs. 1-5 include reference characters without lead lines or underlines. Specifically, Examiner notes reference characters:
110 in Fig. 1, 2, 5
114 in Fig. 2, 3, 4, 5
102 in Fig. 3, 4
104 in Fig. 3
514 in Fig. 5
502 in Fig. 5
512 in Fig. 5
516 in Fig. 5
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallmann (EP1002583) in view of Musgrove et al. (US 3,926,380), hereinafter referred to as Musgrove.
Re Claim 1, Pallmann discloses a mill (crushing machine 1) comprising:
a first milling stone (rotor 3) connected to a rotor shaft (“In the center of the rotor disk 3, the latter is fastened to an axle 6 by means of a bolt 5 b.” [0023]) configured to be rotated by an electric motor (“The rotor 3 is designed as a rotor disk driven by means of an electric motor (not shown)” [0022]),
a second milling stone (stator 4) arranged coaxially with the first milling stone (Fig. 1),
a milling area (see Fig. 1, first illustration below) formed by facing milling surfaces of the first milling stone and the second milling stone, wherein the milling area comprises a first portion formed by first facing portions of the facing milling surfaces of the first milling stone and the second milling stone and a second portion formed by second facing portions of the facing milling surfaces of the first milling stone and the second milling stone, wherein a first distance between the first facing portions of the facing milling surfaces is smaller than a second distance between the second facing portions of the facing milling surfaces, and the first facing portions of the facing milling surfaces and the second facing portions of the facing milling surfaces are configured to extend in directions that are parallel to a radial direction of the mill,
a conically reducing passage extending between an axial opening at an outer surface of the second milling stone and the milling area (see Fig. 1, second illustration below), and
a mixing/feeding wheel arranged coaxially with the first milling stone and said mixing/feeding wheel being rotatable together with the first milling stone (“rotating rotor disc” [0002], Fig. 1 shows both the first milling stone and the mixing/feeding wheel attached to the rotating axle 6) having a conical shape with an increasing radius towards the first milling stone (see Fig. 1, second illustration below),
wherein the conically reducing passage is formed by the mixing/feeding wheel and one or more walls of the second milling stone, whereby a distance between the second milling stone and the mixing/feeding wheel is reducing towards the milling area (see Fig. 1, second illustration below)
wherein the mixing/feeding wheel is configured to pre-mix material fed into the conically reducing passage (Wear protection arrangement 8b is configured to premix material because wear protection arrangement 8b rotates as it is attached to axle 6, so material is mixed when it hits wear-protection arrangement 8b) and pump the material within the conically reducing passage toward the milling area before the material enters the milling area (“wear protection arrangements 8a, 8b can be provided, with which material to be ground can be directed from the center 6 of the rotor disk 3 ” [0024])
Pallmann fails to disclose that the mixing/feeding wheel comprises a plurality of radially extending grooves on a side of the mixing/feeding wheel facing the one or more walls of the second milling stone.
Musgrove teaches a mixing/feeding wheel (cone 47) that comprises radially extending groves (helical depressions 48, Fig. 2) facing the one or more walls (Fig. 1) of the second milling stone (stator 178), wherein the mixing/feeding wheel is configured to pre-mix material fed into the conically reducing passage (cone 47 is configured to premix material because cone 47 rotates, so material is mixed when it hits cone 47) and pump the material within the conically reducing passage toward the milling area (“The nutating cone 47 produces a force feeding effect and initiates primary cracking of the foodstuff. The helical depressions in the cone 47 significantly aid the feeding and cracking process.” Col. 4, Lines 30-33) before the material enters the milling area (“The cracked grain proceeds down the cone through the increasingly narrow clearance at the lower end of the cone, and is fed centrifugally to the secondary grinding region” Col. 4, Lines 33-36) in order to facilitate the movement of the to-be-ground material (“The helical depressions in the cone 47 significantly aid the feeding and cracking process” Col. 4, Lines 30-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pallmann to include radially extending grooves in order to facilitate the movement of the to-be-ground material as taught by Musgrove. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
859
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pallman, first illustration
PNG
media_image2.png
859
489
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pallmann, second illustration
Re Claim 2, Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, discloses the mill according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first facing portions have a smaller dimension in a radial direction than the second facing portions (see Fig. 1, first illustration above).
Re Claim 4, Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, discloses the mill according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the conically reducing passage comprises one or more radial surfaces of the second milling stone, said one or more radial surfaces extending between the axial opening and the first milling stone and being deflected with respect to the axial direction (see Fig. 1, second illustration above).
Re Claim 7, Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, discloses the mill according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Pallman further discloses a frame comprising a first portion (holder 23) configured to support the second milling stone coaxially with the first milling stone (Fig. 1, “The external thread 4c of the stator disk 4 meshes with a matching internal thread 22 of a holder 23, which surrounds the stator disk in an annular manner.” [0028]) and a second portion that is configured static with respect to the first milling stone (bearing 7), and the mill comprises a gap adjustment component (threaded spindle 26) for adjusting a gap between the first milling stone and the second milling stone (“The screws 24a and 24b are then adjusted until a uniform gap distance from the rotor 3 is obtained over the entire circumference of the stator disc. The stator is thus oriented parallel to the rotor. The threaded spindle 26 is then rotated until a desired gap distance has been established between the rotor disc 3 and the stator disc 4. If necessary, the threaded spindle is now locked by a lock nut and the gap spacing is thus fixed. Then the inlet hopper 11 is pushed into the central opening and the machine is ready for use” [0033]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallman, in view of Musgrove, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Korstvedt (US 6,745,961).
Re Claim 8, Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, discloses the mill according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the first milling stone is connected to one end of a rotor shaft (Fig. 1).
Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, fails to disclose that the gap adjustment component comprises an outer sleeve portion provided at the frame and an inner sleeve portion positioned at least partially inside the outer sleeve portion, whereby an outer radial surface of the inner sleeve portion is in contact with an inner radial surface of the outer sleeve portion and the inner sleeve portion and the outer sleeve portion are movable with respect to each other by a sliding movement in the axial direction, and the rotor shaft is positioned inside the inner sleeve portion and connected rotatably to the inner sleeve portion, wherein the inner sleeve portion is connected by one or more threaded taps to the frame or adjusting the gap by moving the inner sleeve portion by rotation of the one or more threaded taps.
Korstvedt teaches that the gap adjustment component (gap adjustment system) comprises an outer sleeve portion (center bore 144) provided at the frame (Body 110) and an inner sleeve portion positioned at least partially inside the outer sleeve portion (comprising thrust bearings 152, thrust bearing sleeve 148, annular retaining ring 148, and bolts 156), whereby an outer radial surface of the inner sleeve portion is in contact with an inner radial surface of the outer sleeve portion (Fig. 1 shows outer and inner sleeve in contact via threads 150 and 146) and the inner sleeve portion and the outer sleeve portion are movable with respect to each other by a sliding movement in the axial direction (“As a result of this configuration, driving the timing belt 160 causes the rotation of the bearing sleeve 148 relative to the mill body 110. This moves the thrust bearing sleeve 148 axially via the interaction between threads 146, 150 to move the thrust bearings 152 and thus the shaft 130 axially. The gap between the processing surfaces of the mill rotor and mill stator is adjustable from approximately 0.001 to 0.050 inches in the preferred embodiment” Col. 5, Lines 45-53), and the rotor shaft (shaft 130) is positioned inside the inner sleeve portion and connected rotatably to the inner sleeve portion (Fig. 1), wherein the inner sleeve portion is connected by one or more threaded taps to the frame (inner sleeve is connected via threads to outer sleeve which is connected via bolt to frame as shown in Fig. 1) for adjusting the gap by moving the inner sleeve portion by rotation of the one or more threaded taps
Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, discloses a device which differs from the claimed device by not having the gap adjustment component of the claimed invention. Korstvedt teaches the claimed gap adjustment component to adjust the distance between the rotor and stator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the gap adjustment component of Pallmann, in view of Musgrove, for the gap adjustment component of Korstvedt and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of that combination as predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant Argued:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertions of the Office Action. The Office Action identifies Pallmann's element 8b as the alleged claimed "mixing/feeding wheel." Pallmann, however, does not disclose or suggest a mixing/feeding wheel. Pallmann describes its elements 8a and 8b as wear-protection arrangements on the rotor disc that guide material from the axis-near center of the rotor toward the grinding elements while avoiding wear damage to the rotor. Pallmann does not describe or suggest element 8b as a wheel,”
Pallman shows element 8b fixed to an axle 6 via a bolt 5b, making it a wheel.
“does not disclose or suggest that element 8b pre-mixes material, does not disclose or suggest that element 8b pumps material within a conically reducing passage,”
Examiner notes that these features were not present within the original claim set. However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that these features are not disclosed by Pallman as shown in the rejection to claim 1 above.
“and does not disclose or suggest a plurality of radially extending grooves on a side of a mixing/feeding wheel facing the one or more walls of the second milling stone.”
Examiner agrees that Pallman does not show the radially extending grooves, but Examiner did not assert that Pallman shows the radially extending grooves in the prior office action. Examiner asserted that Pallman, in view of Korstvedt, shows the radially extending grooves. Furthermore, this limitation is narrower than Applicant’s original claim 6.
“Amended claim 1 requires, among other things, that the mixing/feeding wheel form the conically reducing passage together with one or more walls of the second milling stone, that the mixing/feeding wheel comprise a plurality of radially extending grooves on the side of the wheel facing those one or more walls, and that the mixing/feeding wheel be configured to pre-mix material fed into the conically reducing passage and to pump that material within the conically reducing passage toward the milling area before the material enters the milling area. Consistent with the application, the claimed mixing/feeding wheel is a feed and mixing structure arranged in the conically reducing passage that is configured to pump and pre-mix the material before the material reaches the milling area, and the grooves cooperate with the material to provide the pumping and feeding effect. The claimed grooves therefore provide pre-mixing and feeding within the conically reducing passage, upstream of and before the material enters the milling area.
Guiding material to reduce rotor wear is not the same as a mixing/feeding wheel configured to pre-mix and pump material through a conically reducing passage.”
As stated above, directing the material falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of pumping. Furthermore, when the material to be ground hits the element 8b, the element 8b would agitate it causing the material to mix.
“At most, Pallmann discloses a rotor-side wear-protection arrangement that may guide material to reduce rotor wear (the propriety of such interpretation not being admitted). Because Pallmann does not disclose or suggest at least the claimed mixing/feeding wheel, including the radially extending grooves on the side facing the one or more walls of the second milling stone and the recited pre-mixing and pumping functionality, Pallmann does not disclose or suggest each and every element of amended claim 1 arranged as recited. The Office Action's identification of Pallmann's wear-protection
arrangement 8b as the claimed mixing/feeding wheel is therefore based on an unreasonable interpretation of the claim. Accordingly, Pallmann fails to anticipate amended claim 1, and the § 102 rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2, 4, 7 and 8, which depend therefrom, should be withdrawn.
Moreover, to the extent the Office Action alleges any difference between Pallmann and the claim, such differences must be addressed under § 103 rather than § 102.”
Applicant’s amendments, see “a plurality of radially extending grooves”, filed July 23rd, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and distinguish the claims over the applied prior art. Therefore, the rejection under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 103 is made in view of Pallman in view of Korstvedt.
“To the extent the rejection is maintained under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Korstvedt, it
cannot be sustained. The mere fact that references can be combined or modified does not render the resulting combination obvious unless the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and a proposed modification that would change the principle of operation of the primary reference cannot support a rejection. See MPEP § 2143.01.
Korstvedt does not cure the deficiencies of Pallmann. Korstvedt's slots are formed in a
primary processing surface of a colloid mill rotor, that is, in the rotor/stator processing gap where the material is actively being processed. Korstvedt therefore discloses slots in a processing surface, not radially extending grooves provided on a separate conical mixing/feeding wheel positioned in a conically reducing passage upstream of the milling area to pre-mix and pump material before the material enters the milling area.
Even if Korstvedt discloses slots or grooves in a processing surface (the propriety of such interpretation not being admitted), it does not disclose or suggest radially extending grooves on a separate conical mixing/feeding wheel configured to pre-mix and pump material within a conically reducing passage toward the milling area. The claimed grooves are thus structurally and functionally different from Korstvedt's slots.
To arrive at amended claim 1, the proposed combination would first require treating
Pallmann's wear-protection arrangement as a feed/mixing wheel, and then relocating Korstvedt's processing-surface slots to that different component, a conical mixing/feeding wheel in an upstream conically reducing passage, and assigning those slots an entirely different function, namely pre-mixing and pumping material before milling. Neither Pallmann nor Korstvedt discloses or suggests that modification.”
Applicant’s arguments with respect to original claim 6/new claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Office Action identifies no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would make that specific change, particularly where Pallmann's stated purpose for elements 8a/8b is wear protection rather than feed pumping or pre-mixing. Reconfiguring Pallmann's wear-protection arrangement into a feed, pumping, and pre-mixing wheel bearing Korstvedt's processing-surface slots would change the principle of operation of Pallmann's arrangement and can only be reconstructed through impermissible hindsight drawn from the present application. See MPEP § 2143.01, subsection VI; MPEP § 2145.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of Pallman. Pallman teaches that pieces of the grinding apparatus face wear during operations (“considerable wear occurs during operation” [0002]) which is undesirable (“This wear alters the properties of the milled material and is therefore undesirable” [0002]). Therefore, Pallman forms some elements (including wear protection arrangement 8a, 8b) out of wear-resistant material. That does not mean that the only function of these elements is wear protection. Wear-protection arrangement 8a, 8b is disclosed to perform the function of pumping the to-be-ground material toward the milling area (“wear protection arrangements 8a, 8b can be provided, with which material to be ground can be directed from the center 6 of the rotor disk 3 close to the axis in the direction of the grinding track elements 3a” [0024]) and it performs the function of mixing because it agitates the to-be-ground material when such material hits wear-protection arrangement 8b while it is rotating.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Pallman discloses that element 8b is a semi-conical surface (Fig. 1) that directs the material, a form of pumping, towards the milling area and is configured to mix, for the reasons stated above, in additional to protecting from wear. As such, the combination with Korstvedt would not change the principle of operation of Pallman, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the grooves merely help the element 8b of Pallman pre-mix the to-be-ground material.
Examiner notes that the combination of Pallman and Musgrove would not change the operating principle of Pallman for like reasons.
Because the Office Action has not provided the requisite articulated reasoning linking the factual findings to the legal conclusion of obviousness, and because neither Pallmann nor Korstvedt, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests the claimed mixing/feeding wheel and its radially extending grooves configured to pre-mix and pump material within the conically reducing passage before the material enters the milling area, a person of ordinary skill in the art could not have arrived at the invention of amended claim 1 without impermissible hindsight.
For the reasons stated in the rejection above and elaborated upon in the response to arguments, the Office Action has provided the requisite support for the legal conclusion of obviousness. If the original claim 6 was still presented, the rejection of original claim 6 would be maintained. As is, amended claim 1 contains all the limitations of original claim 6 as well as further limitations and is rejected under Pallman in view of Musgrove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reinhall (US 3,684,200) teaches that grinding disc elements are known to have grooves and ribs and disc 20 is shown to have grooves/ribs.
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
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights