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 Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Amended claims 1 and 11 recite “the main body is shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in cutting and rotational regions of the die”, see claim 1: lines 14-15 and claim 11: lines 18-19. New claims 20-22 recite “the main body is shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in a cutting and rotational regions of the die by at least at 50%, 100%, 110%, relative to a pelletizer chamber having no underwater pelletizer therein.” New claim 23 recites “…, wherein the main body is further shaped to direct a greater amount of the fluid toward the plurality of pumping holes”.
The above recitations do not further provide limitations for the claimed “An apparatus to improve the hydrodynamics in an underwater pelletizer”, as claimed in claims 1 and 11, and are more directed to the process of using the claimed apparatus; therefore, the limitations do not get further patentable weight and are treated as “intended use”.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 20-23 are newly added claims.
Claims 1, 4, 9-12, 16-17 are currently amended.
In view of amendment, filed on 05/14/2026, the following new grounds of rejections are necessitated as a result of amendment:
New Grounds of Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20-22 recite “… to a pelletizer chamber having no underwater pelletizer therein” which was not described in the specification. Therefore, amended claims 1, 11, and 20-22 fail to comply with the written description requirement and the newly added limitation is treated as “new matter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 20-22 recite “…the main body is shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in cutting and rotational regions of the die”. The term “shorten” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shorten” 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.
Claims 20 – 22 recite “a residence time of a fluid in a cutting and rotational regions of the die by at least at least…” which renders the claim vague and indefinite because claim 1 already recites “a residence time of a fluid in a cutting and rotational regions of the die…” and it is not clear if the limitations in claims 20 – 22 refer to previously cited limitation or refer to a new limitation. Moreover, recited “…at least at least…” which renders the claim vague and indefinite. Clarification of the issues are required.
The following rejections are maintained for the reason of records as given in the previous office action. The bases of these rejections are the same as given in the office action, mailed on 01/14/2026:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muerb (US 7,008,203).
As to claims 1 and 11, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses an apparatus to improve the hydrodynamics in an underwater pelletizer, the apparatus being attachable to a knives-holder shaft support (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) of the underwater pelletizer pelletizer or to an internal wall (a wall 40; col. 6, lines 46-51) of a pelletizer chamber, the apparatus comprising:
- a tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) extending from a first end to a second end along which a fluid flows, and a fluid flows in a direction from the first end to the second end of the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63).
[AltContent: textbox (A die (4))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pumping holes (20, 21, and 22) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Knives-holder (11))][AltContent: textbox (A main body (13, 14))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A tube (18) having a 1st end upstream and a 2nd end downstream.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A tube (18))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
530
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An interwall (40))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
618
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
- a main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) in fluid communication with the second end of the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63), the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) having a first face and a second face parallel to the first face (Fig. 1B), spaced from each other by a lateral surface, the first face being integral and opposite to a die (the orifice plate 4; col. 17- 28) of the pelletizer or to a back side of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) of such pelletizer, and the second face being hollow and facing a back side of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34);
wherein the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) is designed to receive fluid from the second end of the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) and to deliver it towards the back side of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) by the second face;
wherein the knives holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) optionally having pumping holes (the flow openings 20, 21, and 22; col 4, lines 4-15); and
wherein the apparatus is in fluid communication with the die (the orifice plate 4; col. 17- 28), so that the fluid leaves the apparatus and continuously contacts the die (the orifice plate 4; col. 17- 28) during pellets formation.
Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) extending from a first end to a second end along which a fluid flows, however, is silent on disclosing the first end being in fluid communication with a fluid supply from, as to claim 1, or with a pelletizer chamber inlet, as to claim 11, which the fluid flows in a direction from the first end to the second end of the tube (18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to further complete the apparatus, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), through providing a fluid supply or a pelletizer chamber inlet that the first end of the tube to be connected to and to be in fluid communication with in order to supply cooling medium to the die plate and the plates for cooling the granulated plastic materials, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203; col. 1, lines 17-19)
Further, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “wherein the main body is shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in cutting and rotational regions of the die”, in claims 1 and 11, is more directed to a manner of operating the apparatus and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, such recitation is treated more as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed structure by Muerb (US ‘203) is capable of operating the same manner, as recited in claims 1 and 11, and claimed structural limitations in claims 1 and 11 are met by Muerb (US ‘203).
As to claim 2, Muerb (US ‘203) teaches the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) has a cross section having a first axis and a second axis. See figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claim 3, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the first axis is greater than the second axis. See figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claim 4, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing the first axis is between 50% to 99% of the value. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a size of the first axis compare to a tube length, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that the first axis to be between 50% to 99% of the tube length in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 5, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) has at least one lateral surface tangential to the lateral surface of the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41).
As to claim 6, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) is cylindrical. See Fig. 1B.
As to claim 7, Muerb (US ‘203) teaches vertexes of the cylindrical main body are round-shaped. See Fig. 1B.
As to claim 8, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing the radius of the round-shaped vertexes is less than 45% of the radius of the main body. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a radius of the round-shaped vertexes, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that the radius of the round-shaped vertexes to be less than 45% of the radius of the main body in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 9, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the apparatus is attached to the knives-holder shaft support (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) or to an interwall (a wall 40; col. 6, lines 46-51) of the pelletizer chamber, by means of at least one selected from screws (17). See col. 3, lines 44-47 and Fig. 1A.
As to claim 10, Muerb (US ‘203) teaches the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) is designed to receive fluid from the second end of the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63) and flow the fluid in the same direction as a direction the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) runs. See Figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claim 12, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing a distance between the pelletizer chamber inlet and the first end of the tube is between 1% and 65% of the radius of the main body. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a distance between the pelletizer chamber inlet and the first end of the tube, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that the distance between the pelletizer chamber inlet and the first end of the tube is between 1% and 65% of the radius of the main body in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 13, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses the first end of the tube is centralized within the pelletizer chamber inlet. See Figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claim 14, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing the fluid enters tangentially in the main body and flows within the main body in the same direction as a direction the knives-holder runs, in a Reynolds number range from 1.0E+06 to 9E+07. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a flow direction, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that the fluid enters tangentially in the main body and flows within the main body in the same direction as a direction the knives-holder runs, in a Reynolds number range from 1.0E+06 to 9E+07 in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 15, Muerb (US ‘203) disclose the apparatus and the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) back face are separated by a horizontal distance and the main body's outer radius and the knives-holder back face are separated by a vertical distance. See fig. 1B.
As to claim 16, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing the horizontal distance (x) is less than 45% of the radius of the main body. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a horizontal distance (x), as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that a horizontal distance to be less than 45% of the radius of the main body in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 17, Muerb (US ‘203) is silent on disclosing a vertical distance satisfies a relationship t−w≤y≤u wherein “t” is a distance the center of knives-holder and the center of the pumping hole, “w” is a radius of the pumping role cross-section, and “u” is a radius of the knives-holder. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of applicant’s invention, to alter a vertical distance, as taught by Muerb (US ‘203), so that the vertical distance satisfies a relationship of t−w≤y≤u wherein “t” is a distance the center of knives-holder and the center of the pumping hole, “w” is a radius of the pumping role cross-section, and “u” is a radius of the knives-holder in order for the cooling medium is removed from the housing via a likewise tangential coolant outlet leading away from the blades so the granulate also being conveyed away, as suggested by Muerb (US ‘203): col. 2, lines 21-24.
As to claim 18, Muerb (US ‘203) disclose the vertical distance is equal to the radius of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34). See figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claim 19, Muerb (US ‘203) teach the external radius of the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) is greater than external radius of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34). See figs. 1A and 1B.
As to claims 20 – 22, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “the main body is shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in a cutting and rotational regions of the die by at least 50%, 100%, 110%, relative to a pelletizer chamber having no underwater pelletizer therein”, in claims 20, 21, 22, respectively, is more directed to a manner of operating the apparatus and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, such recitations are treated more as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed apparatus by Muerb (US ‘203) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in claims 20, 21, and 22, and therefore, structural limitations, claimed in claims 20, 21, and 22, are met by Muerb (US ‘203).
As to claim 23, Muerb (US ‘203) disclose the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34 with the blade carrier 10, col. 3, lines 31-33) comprises a plurality of pumping holes (the flow openings 20, 21, and 22, col. 4, lines 1 and 5), wherein the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) further shaped capable of directing a greater amount of the fluid toward the plurality of pumping holes (the flow openings 20, 21, and 22, col. 4, lines 1 and 5).
As to claim 23, it should be noted that the claimed recitation of “the main body is further shaped to direct a greater amount of the fluid toward the plurality of pumping holes”, in claim 23, is more directed to a manner of operating the apparatus and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 (II), therefore, such recitation is treated more as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed apparatus by Muerb (US ‘203) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in claim 23, and therefore, structural limitations, claimed in claim 23, are met by Muerb (US ‘203).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 05/14/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “As clearly seen in Fig. 1A of Muerb, there is no teaching or suggestion of an apparatus having a main body which is “shaped to shorten a residence time of a fluid in cutting and rotational regions of the die.” Furthermore, there is no teaching or suggestion in Muerb showing how changing the volume of water supplied to interior (19) would alter residence time of a fluid in such regions.” (page 9, last paragraph, and page 10, first paragraph)
This is not found persuasive. As it has been clarified above in the body of the rejection, claimed recitation of “the main body is further shaped to direct a greater amount of the fluid toward the plurality of pumping holes” is more directed to a manner of operating the apparatus and does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art (See MPEP 2114 (II)). Therefore, such recitation is treated more as “intended use”. It is believed that the disclosed apparatus by Muerb (US ‘203) is capable of operating the same manner as recited in the claimed subject matter, and therefore, structural limitations, as claimed in the claimed subject matter, is met by Muerb (US ‘203).
Moreover, in response to applicant’s arguments that Muerb does not disclose the first face of the main body is “integral and opposite to a die of the pelletizer, and the second face being hollow and facing a back side of a knives-holder”, as claimed in claims 1 and 11.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive because in absence of any further definition or feature regarding this limitation in the claim, Muerb (US ‘203) discloses a main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) in fluid communication with the second end of the tube (the coolant inlet 18; col. 3, lines 62-63), the main body (the housing 13 which continues into the cover 14; col. 3, lines 39-41) having a first face and a second face parallel to the first face (Fig. 1B), spaced from each other by a lateral surface, the first face being integral and opposite to a die (the orifice plate 4; col. 17- 28) of the pelletizer or to a back side of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34) of such pelletizer, and the second face being hollow and facing a back side of the knives-holder (blade carrier shaft 11; col 3, lines 31-34).
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejection, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references by the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edelman et al. (US 9,287,817), Lin (US 4,846,644), Voigt (US 4,710,113), Bradbury et al. (US 4,099,900), Pritchard (US 3,892,834), and Ellwood (US 4,978,288).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
07/28/2026
Prosecution Insights