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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83(a), 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because of the following reasons:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cutting gap adjustment apparatus” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cutting gap adjustment drive” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cutting rotor bearing” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “bearing shell” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “synchronizing device” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “controller” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sensors distributed over the length of the cutting gap” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “half-shell” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife” shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife” shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: “14”, “15”, and “16” in figures 4A and 4C.
Reference character “3” has been used to designate both “counter-knife” and “cutting rotor”.
Reference character “21” has been used to designate both “control device” and “worm gear stage”.
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. 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.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification fails to identify all of the figures in the brief description, for example, the specification recites figure 4 in the brief description. However, the drawings provided include figures “4A”, “4B”, and “4C”. The brief description of the specification must include all of the figures illustrated in the drawings and therefore must include figures “4A”, “4B”, and “4C” in the brief description. (See MPEP 608.02(f)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear how the sensor system is reached by a rotor tooth within the limitation “The sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.”
It is also unclear what the angle is in reference to within the limitation “The sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.”
For examination purposes, the angle of rotation is interpreted to mean the angle at which the rotor rotates when in operation and 0° is defined to be the position in which the sensor is in contact with a rotor tooth.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear how the sensor system is reached by a rotor tooth within the limitation “The sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.”
It is also unclear what the angle is in reference to within the limitation “The sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.”
For examination purposes, the angle of rotation is interpreted to mean the angle at which the rotor rotates when in operation and 0° is defined to be the position in which the sensor is in contact with a rotor tooth.
Claim limitation “synchronizing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the specification, the “synchronizing device” does not appear and does not have any structure relating to the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for a “synchronizing device”. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed limitation because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weis et al. (WO 2010006572 A1)(Hereinafter “Weis”).
Regarding claim 1, Weis discloses: A cutting mechanism (fig. 2)(The strand granulator has a cutting mechanism shown in fig. 2.) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
485
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (2)(fig. 2)[para. 0002] with rotor tooth tips; (21)(modified fig. 2 above)
PNG
media_image2.png
370
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a counter-knife (3)(fig. 2 above) with a cutting edge; (3A)(zoomed in modified fig. 2 above)
and a cutting gap adjustment apparatus; (44)(fig. 2)
wherein:
strands entering the cutting mechanism can be sheared off by the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at the counter-knife; [para. 0002-0003] (The counter knife is the cutting
strip.)
a cutting gap (41)(modified fig. 2 above) is formed between the cutting edge of the counter-knife and the rotor tooth tips of the cutting rotor; (fig. 2) and
the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism. [para. 0052] (The cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to adjust the dimension of the cutting gap at any time therefore during operation of the cutting mechanism.)
Regarding claim 2, Weis discloses: The cutting mechanism of Claim 1, wherein:
the cutting gap adjustment apparatus comprises:
a cutting gap adjustment drive; [para. 0050](two actuators)
a control device; [para. 0050](control system)
a sensor system; [para. 0050](The control system monitors rotation therefore there is a sensor system paired with the control system to detect rotation.) and
the sensor system is configured to detect one or more machine operating and/or pellet
parameters during operation of the cutting mechanism; [para. 0050] (The sensor system is configured to detect rotation of the cutting rotor therefore detects one or more machine operating parameters.) and
the control device is configured to control the cutting gap adjustment drive depending on one or more of the machine operating and/or pellet parameters detected by sensor system. [para. 0050] (Since the control system is configured to control the actuators by monitoring and ensuring correct rotation by the sensor system, the control device is thereby configured to control the cutting gap adjustment drive depending on one or more of the machine operating parameters detected by the sensor system.)
Regarding claim 4, Weis discloses: The cutting mechanism of Claim 2, wherein the control device of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is further configured to automatically actuate the cutting gap adjustment drive during operation of the cutting mechanism without the intervention of a machine operator. [para. 0050]
Regarding claim 6, Weis discloses: A strand pelletizer (fig. 2) [paras. 0001-0003] comprising the cutting mechanism of Claim 2. (fig. 2)
Regarding claim 21, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, wherein the sensor system comprises a controller connected to a sensor and processing the signals thereof. [para. 0050]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21 above, and further in view of Criddle et al. (WO 2014128553 A1)(Hereinafter “Criddle”).
Regarding claim 3, Weis discloses: The cutting mechanism of Claim 1, wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus comprises a feed device (The cutting gap adjustment apparatus is the feed device.)
Weis fails to disclose: a feed device for adjusting the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from the counter-knife.
Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a feed device (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] for adjusting the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from a desired position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the feed device as taught by Criddle to the feed device of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
Regarding claim 5, Weis in view of Criddle teaches: The cutting mechanism of Claim 3, wherein the counter-knife is fixably mounted. (figs. 2-3 of Weis)(The counter knife (3) is fixably mounted on the counter knife holder (4).)
Regarding claim 7 Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, wherein: the control device of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is further configured to automatically actuate the cutting gap adjustment drive during operation of the cutting mechanism without the intervention of a machine operator; [para. 0050] the cutting gap adjustment apparatus further comprises a feed device; (The cutting gap adjustment apparatus is the feed device.) and the counter-knife is fixably mounted. [para. 0050 of Weis] (The cutting strip holder which comprises the counter-knife is fixably mounted.)
Weis fails to disclose: a feed device for adjusting the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from the counter-knife.
Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a feed device (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] for adjusting the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from a desired position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the feed device as taught by Criddle to the feed device of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
Regarding claim 10, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, with a cutting gap adjustment apparatus.
Weis fails to disclose: wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus further comprises a worm gear stage for displacing the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from the counter-knife.
Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a cutting gap adjustment apparatus (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees. (By being able to adjust the rotor through the worm screws and being able to adjust the rotor through the pivot member, the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus as taught by Criddle to the cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
Weis in view of Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a cutting gap adjustment apparatus (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees. (By being able to adjust the rotor through the worm screws and being able to adjust the rotor through the pivot member, the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus as taught by Criddle to the cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
Weis in view of Criddle teaches: wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus further comprises a worm gear stage for displacing the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards and away from the counter-knife. (As taught by the features of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Criddle, when imported into Weis, this becomes possible.)
Claims 8-9, 14-20, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21 above, and further in view of Harwarth et al. (DE 19933497A1) (Hereinafter “Harwarth”).
Regarding claim 9, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor.
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor system comprises sensors distributed over the length of the cutting gap and mounted on the counter-knife.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a cutting gap adjustment apparatus [Abstract] with a sensor system (3)(fig. 1) that comprises multiple sensors distributed over the length of the cutting gap and mounted on the counter-knife. [para. 0015]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multiple sensors on the sensor system distributed over the length of the cutting gap and mounted on the counter-knife as taught by Harwarth to the sensor system of Weis so that the counter-blade body has multiple areas between which sensors for detecting the cutting gap depth are arranged. [para. 0015 of Harwarth]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the counter-blade body to have multiple areas between which sensors for detecting the cutting gap depth are arranged.
Regarding claims 8 and 27, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, wherein the sensor system is configured to monitor the rotation of the cutting rotor. [para. 0050]
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor system comprises a gap sensor for determining the gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism, and wherein the gap sensor is configured as an eddy current sensor.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a cutting gap adjustment apparatus [Abstract] with a sensor system that comprises a gap sensor [para. 0009] (The sensor system has at least one sensor for determining the gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism.) for determining the gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism, [para. 0030] and wherein the gap sensor is configured as an eddy current sensor. [para. 0030]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the gap sensor configured as an eddy current sensor as taught by Harwarth to the sensor system of Weis in order to allow for a closed control loop to be built, [para. 0020 of Harwarth] and to lower cost. [pg. 11, lines 19-20 of Lion Precision]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for a closed control loop to be built.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, wherein the control device comprises a controller and a sensor system.
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control device comprises a controller for actuating the cutting gap adjustment drive depending on the dimension of the cutting gap determined by the sensor system and adjusting dimension of the cutting gap to a target value. [para. 0020 of Weis is the closest to disclosing this.]
wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor configured to detect a spacing of the passing rotor tooth tips from the counter-knife.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a controller (7)(fig. 1) for actuating the cutting gap adjustment drive (4)(fig. 1) depending on the dimension of the cutting gap determined by the sensor system comprising a sensor (3)(fig. 1) and adjusting dimension of the cutting gap to a target value. [para. 0027] The sensor configured to detect a spacing of the passing rotor tooth tips from the counter-knife. [para. 0027]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the functions of the controller and the sensor as taught by Harwarth to the functions of the controller and the sensor of Weis so that the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation. [para. 0027 of Harwarth]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms with controllers. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 18, As best understood, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, with a sensor system.
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at least partially recessed in the counter-knife and is arranged behind the cutting edge of the counter- knife with respect to a direction of rotation of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and faces the rotationally drivable cutting rotor,
And wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife, and that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a sensor (3)(fig. 1) arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife (12)(fig. 1)(fig. 1 shows the sensor arranged at a flank portion (or flat edge) of the counter knife.) that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife, (fig. 1) and that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife. (fig. 1)(The sensor is reached by a rotor tooth at any angle (A) therefore is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife and subsequently is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor arranged in the way as taught by Harwarth to the sensor system of Weis so that the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation. [para. 0027 of Harwarth]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms with sensors. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation.
After modification, Weis in view of Harwarth teaches: wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at least partially recessed in the counter-knife and is arranged behind the cutting edge of the counter- knife with respect to a direction of rotation of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and faces the rotationally drivable cutting rotor,
And wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor arranged at a flank portion of the counter-knife that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 20° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife, and that is reached by a rotor tooth with an angle of rotation of less than 5° with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth lies with its rotor tooth tip exactly at the cutting edge of the counter-knife.
Regarding claims 19, 20, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6, with a sensor system comprises a sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 2 kHz.
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 2 kHz, and wherein the sensor system comprises a sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 30 kHz.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) comprising a cutting gap adjustment apparatus [Abstract] with a sensor system (3)(fig. 1) comprising an eddy current sensor. [para. 0030] (Eddy current sensors are known in the art to have sampling frequencies that reach more than 30kHz therefore also more than 2kHz.) [pg. 11, lines 17-20 of Lion Precision]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the eddy current sensor as taught by Harwarth to the sensor system of Weis to allow for higher sampling frequencies and to lower cost. [pg. 11, lines 17-20 of Lion Precision]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the counter-blade body to have multiple areas between which sensors for detecting the cutting gap depth are arranged.
Regarding claims 24, 25, and 26 Weis in view of Harwarth teaches: 24. The strand pelletizer of Claim 8, with a gap sensor. (see claim 8 rejection above)
Weis in view of Harwarth does not explicitly teach: wherein the gap sensor is provided on the counter-knife, wherein the gap sensor is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge of the counter-knife, and wherein the gap sensor is configured as a non-contact measuring distance sensor.
Harwarth further teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) wherein sensors are provided on the counter-knife, [para. 0015 of Harwarth] wherein sensors are arranged in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge of the counter-knife, [para. 0015 of Harwarth](Since the sensors are arranged along the length of the counter-blade body, and the counter-blade body is in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge of the counter knife, the sensors are arranged in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge of the counter knife.) and wherein sensors are configured as a non-contact measuring distance sensor. [para. 0015 of Harwarth](Since the sensors measure a cutting gap distance without contacting the part to which the sensors are measuring, the sensors are configured as non-contact measuring distance sensors.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention apply the features of have multiple sensors on the sensor system distributed over the length of the cutting gap and mounted on the counter-knife as taught by Harwarth to the gap sensor of Weis in view of Harwarth so that the counter-blade body has multiple areas between which sensors for detecting the cutting gap depth are arranged. [para. 0015 of Harwarth]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for the counter-blade body to have multiple areas between which sensors for detecting the cutting gap depth are arranged.
Claims 22-23, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis in view of Criddle as applied to claims 3, 5, 7, and 10 above, and further in view of Huppmann et al. (hereinafter “Huppmann”) (DE 202005014334 U1).
Regarding claims 22, 23, and 30, Weis in view of Criddle teaches: The strand pelletizer of Claim 7, comprising a feed device.
Weis in view of Criddle does not explicitly teach: the feed device comprises at least two cutting rotor bearings that rotatably support the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and are configured to be adjustable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor; and two of the cutting rotor bearings are provided at opposite end portions of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor. And, wherein the cutting rotor bearing has an eccentrically configured bearing shell that can be rotated about an axis of rotation parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and, when rotated, displaces the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards or away from the counter-knife as a result of the eccentricity.
Huppmann teaches: A similar comminuting apparatus [para. 0001] comprising an adjustment apparatus [para. 0006] and a feed device (03, fig. 2) comprising at least two bearings [para. 0019] that rotatably support the rotationally drivable roller [para. 0001] and are configured to be adjustable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable roller; [paras. 0010 and 0019] (Since the bearings are on opposite ends of the adjusting spindle, the bearings are configured to be adjustable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable roller.) and two of the cutting rotor bearings are provided at opposite end portions of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor. (figs. 1-2)(Both bearings extend to each end portion therefore would be provided at one end and the other end respectively. It is well known that eccentric bearings extend to opposite ends of supporting members.) And, wherein the cutting rotor bearing has an eccentrically configured bearing shell (05, fig. 1) [Abstract, para. 0019] that can be rotated about an axis of rotation parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable roller (fig. 1) and, when rotated, displaces the rotationally drivable roller towards or away from the other roller as a result of the eccentricity. [Abstract]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the eccentric bearings and bearing shells of the feed device as taught by Huppmann to the feed device of Weis for easy operation, reducing cost, and improving simplicity. [para. 0019]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar comminuting machines with gap adjustment apparatuses. The combination of Weis, Criddle, and Huppmann would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved simplicity.
After modification, Weis in view of Criddle and Huppmann teaches: the feed device comprises at least two cutting rotor bearings that rotatably support the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and are configured to be adjustable transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor; and two of the cutting rotor bearings are provided at opposite end portions of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor. And, wherein the cutting rotor bearing has an eccentrically configured bearing shell that can be rotated about an axis of rotation parallel to the longitudinal axis of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor and, when rotated, displaces the rotationally drivable cutting rotor towards or away from the counter-knife as a result of the eccentricity.
Regarding claim 31, As best understood, Weis in view of Criddle and Huppmann teaches: The strand pelletizer of Claim 30, wherein the eccentrically configured bearing shell is configured as a half-shell (Since the bearing shell does not fully encompass the bearing, but only half of it on the “outside” portion as seen in figs. 1 and 2, the bearing shell is configured as a half-shell.) and to be open to one side for removing the rotationally drivable cutting rotor. (When the half-shell is opened, since there are less objects around the rotationally drivable cutting rotor, the removal of the half-shell aids in removing the rotationally drivable cutting rotor.)
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21 above, in view of Criddle, and further in view of Wolf et al. (hereinafter “Wolf”) (EP 1582260 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 13, Weis discloses: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6 with a cutting gap adjustment drive (see claim 2 rejection above) and a synchronizing device [para. 0050] (Since the machine allows for unmanned automation of the cutting gap, some sort of synchronizing device for synchronizing the adjustment of the cutting gap exists.) wherein the synchronizing device is provided with an electronic synchronizing control module [para. 0050](control system) for synchronously controlling a plurality of actuators.
Weis does not explicitly disclose: wherein the cutting gap adjustment drive comprises an electric stepper motor, or wherein the cutting gap adjustment drive comprises a plurality of stepper motors provided for adjusting the cutting gap at different portions along rotationally drivable cutting rotor.
The strand pelletizer of Claim 6 comprising a synchronizing device for synchronizing the adjustment of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions;
wherein the synchronizing device is configured electronically and/or provided with an electronic synchronizing control module for synchronously controlling a plurality of stepper motors.
Harwarth teaches: A similar cutting mechanism (fig. 1) wherein the cutting gap adjustment drive comprises an electric stepper motor, [para. 0027] and a synchronizing device (control and regulating device (7)) provided with an electronic synchronizing control module (The synchronizing device regulates (or synchronizes) and controls using signals from a sensor therefore has an electronic synchronizing control module) for controlling a stepper motor. [para. 0027]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the electric stepper motor of the cutting gap adjustment drive and the synchronizing device as taught by Harwarth to the cutting gap adjustment drive and synchronizing device of Weis so that the cutting gap depth can be readjusted in the submillimeter range during operation, and the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation. [para. 0027 of Harwarth]
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar cutting mechanisms. The combination of Weis and Harwarth would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success so that the cutting gap depth can be readjusted in the submillimeter range during operation and the cutting gap setting can be advantageously adjusted and readjusted continuously even during operation.
Wolf teaches: A similar cutting gap adjustment apparatus [para. 0001](fig. 4) wherein the cutting gap adjustment drive (40, 42)(fig. 4) comprises a plurality of stepper motors [para. 0028, line 10](40, 42)(fig. 4) provided for adjusting the cutting gap [para. 0028] at different portions along rotationally drivable cutting rotor. (22)(fig. 4)(The stepper motors are provided for adjusting the cutting gap at different portions along rotationally drivable cutting rotor.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a plurality of electric stepper motors at different portions along a rotationally drivable cutting rotor as taught by Wolf to the cutting gap adjustment drive of Weis so that the cutting gap depth can be readjusted in the submillimeter range during operation. [para. 0027 of Harwarth]
Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a cutting gap adjustment apparatus (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees. (By being able to adjust the rotor through the worm screws and being able to adjust the rotor through the pivot member, the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus as taught by Criddle to the cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
After modification, Weis in view of Harwarth, Wolf, and Criddle teaches: The strand pelletizer of Claim 6 further comprising a synchronizing device [para. 0050] for synchronizing the adjustment of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions;
wherein the synchronizing device is configured electronically and/or provided with an electronic synchronizing control module for synchronously controlling a plurality of stepper motors.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis as applied to claims 1-2, 4-6, and 21 above, in view of Criddle, and further in view of Harwarth.
Regarding claims 28, and 29, Weis in view of Harwarth teaches: The strand pelletizer of Claim 9, with a cutting gap adjustment apparatus and sensor signals from sensors within a control unit. [para. 0050 of Weis]
Weis in view of Harwarth does not explicitly teach: wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees depending on sensor signals of at least a portion of the sensors,
Criddle teaches: A cutter (200, fig. 4) with a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (296) and a cutting gap adjustment apparatus (two worm gears, pivot member, reciprocation housing, worm screws, pivot member, pinion, stepper motor) [pg. 15, lines 13-21 of Criddle] configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees. (By being able to adjust the rotor through the worm screws and being able to adjust the rotor through the pivot member, the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the elements of the cutting gap adjustment apparatus as taught by Criddle to the cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Weis for making more accurate cuts [pg. 1, lines 10-15 of Criddle] by being able to control the rotor of Weis along more directions.
Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose similar rotationally drivable cutting rotor machines. The combination of Weis and Criddle would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for improved adjustability of the rotationally drivable rotor.
Weis in view of Harwarth and Criddle teaches: wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees depending on sensor signals of at least a portion of the sensors. [para. 0050 of Weis] (Since the control system has a sensor to detect rotation of the cutting rotor, and the control system sends signals to actuators to follow the control system’s commands, then the modified cutting gap adjustment apparatus of Weis in view of Harwarth and Criddle is configured to displace the rotationally drivable cutting rotor at different rotationally drivable cutting rotor portions individually to different degrees depending on sensor signals of at least a portion of the sensors within the control unit.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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 (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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights