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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of "the pelletizer chamber" in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “a pelletizer chamber”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “the knives-holder” in 11th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “knives holder”.
Claim 1 recites “fluid” in 12th line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers back to previously cited “a fluid” in 4th line or refers to a new “fluid”. Does said “fluid” in 12th line tend to be “the fluid”? Clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the value" in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claims 1 and 4 fail to disclose “a value” of what. Clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites “an internal wall” in 2nd line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers back to previously cited “an internal wall” in 2nd line of claim 1 or refers to a new “internal wall”. Does said “internal wall” in 2nd line tend to be “the internal wall”? Clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites “fluid” in 1st line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers back to previously cited “a fluid” in 4th line of claim 1 or refers to a new “fluid”. Does said “fluid” in claim 10 tend to be “the fluid”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “an underwater pelletizer” in 2nd line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers back to previously cited “an underwater pelletizer” in 1st line of claim 11 or refers to a new “underwater pelletizer”. Does said “underwater pelletizer” in 2nd line tend to be “the internal wall”? Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of "the pelletizer chamber" in 3rd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 1 fails to define “a pelletizer chamber”.
Claim 11 recites “fluid” in 13th line which renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the cited limitation refers back to previously cited “a fluid” in 4th line or refers to a new “fluid”. Does said “fluid” in 13th line tend to be “the fluid”? Clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation of “the distance” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 12 fails to define “a distance between the pelletizer chamber inlet and the first end of the tube”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation of “the horizontal distance” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 16 fails to define “a horizontal distance”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “the vertical distance” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 17 fails to define “a vertical distance”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation of “the external radius” in 1st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because prior to the cited limitation, claim 19 fails to define “an external radius”.
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) 1-19 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 pelletizer or to an internal wall (a wall 40; col. 6, lines 46-51) of the 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)
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.
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
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
01/10/2026