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 § 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis (WO-2010006572-A1) in view of Rolfe (US 4198006 A).
In re claim1: Weis discloses
a cutting mechanism (fig.1) comprising:
a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.1, 2) with rotor tooth tips (fig.1, 21, shows tooth tips at the end);
a counter-knife (fig.1, 3, referred as cutting bar) with a cutting edge (fig.1 shows cutting edge where number 3 is pointing ); and
Weis is silent about
a sensor system;
wherein:
a cutting gap is formed between the cutting edge of the counter-knife and the rotor tooth tips of the cutting rotor; and
the sensor system is configured to determine a gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism.
However, Rolfe teaches about
a sensor system (fig.3);
wherein:
a cutting gap (fig.3, d, referred as knife clearance) is formed between the cutting edge (fig.3, 47) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar) and the rotor tooth tips (fig.3, tips of 34) of the cutting rotor ; and
the sensor (fig.4, abstract, referred as magnetic clearance sensor, see attached translation) system is configured to determine a gap dimension (fig.3, d, referred as knife clearance) of the cutting gap during operation (col1, lines 40-57, describes how during operation clearance measurement can help instead manually stopping and measuring the gap) of the cutting mechanism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer of Weis and include a sensor system, as taught by Rolfe, for the purpose of measuring distance between cutting knife and shear bar without requiring manual access thereto and shutdown of the machine (col1, lines 14-63).
In re claim2, which depends on claim1: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the cutting mechanism according to claim1. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a gap sensor (fig.4); and the gap sensor is provided on the counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar).
In re claim3, which depends on claim1: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the cutting mechanism according to claim1. Rolfe further teaches the counter-knife (fig.2, 36) is a stationary counter-knife (fig.2 shows counter knife 36 is stationary while cutter head is rotating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer of Weis and include a sensor system, as taught by Rolfe, for the purpose of measuring distance between cutting knife and shear bar without requiring manual access thereto and shutdown of the machine (col1, lines 14-63).
In re claim4, which depends on claim2: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the cutting mechanism according to claim2. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, abstract, referred as magnetic clearance sensor) is configured as a sensor selected from the group consisting of a non-contact (fig.3, shows the clearance is measured without contact) measuring distance sensor and an eddy current sensor (fig.4, 50 shows alternating magnetic field is created by coil 52, also see col4, lines 6-26).
In re claim5, which depends on claim1: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the cutting mechanism according to claim1. Weis further discloses a strand pelletizer (abstract, see attached translation).
In re claim6, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe); and the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral ends) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar).
In re claim7, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) that at least one of: is directed towards the passing rotor tooth tips (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.2, 16, referred as cutter head);
In re claim8, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) arranged: at least partially recessed in the counter-knife (fig.3, 36); and behind the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36) with respect to a direction of rotation (fig.3, down arrow shows rotation direction) of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.2, 16, referred as cutter head) and faces (fig.2, shows cutter head and counter knife faces each other) the rotationally drivable cutting rotor.
In re claim9, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) arranged at a flank portion (fig.2, shows sensor is at the edge of counter knife 36) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36) that is reached by a rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) with an angle of rotation (fig.2, shows the knife reaches at an angle to the counter knife 36) of less than 20° (fig.2, knife 34 goes from 90˚ when on top to 0˚ or parallel to the peripheral end 47) with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) lies with its rotor tooth tip (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) exactly at the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36).
In re claim10, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises a sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) arranged at a flank portion (fig.2, shows sensor is at the edge of counter knife 36) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36) that is reached by a rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) with an angle of rotation (fig.2, shows the knife reaches at an angle to the counter knife 36) of less than 5° (fig.2, knife 34 goes from 90˚ when on top to 0˚ or parallel to the peripheral end 47) with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) lies with its rotor tooth tip (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) exactly at the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the counter-knife (fig.3, 36).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis in view of Rolfe as applied to claims 5 above, and further in view of Buevich (RU-2446917-C2).
In re claim11, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3).
Both Weis and Rolfe are silent about a sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 2 kHz.
However, Buevich teaches a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz (page2, para3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer gap measuring sensor of Weis and Rolfe and make a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz for the purpose of improving reliability, accuracy, and quality control of the condition of the cutting edges (page2, para5, Note that higher sampling frequency means more accurate).
In re claim12, which depends on claim5: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim5. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3).
Both Weis and Rolfe are silent about a sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 30 kHz.
However, Buevich teaches a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz (page2, para3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer gap measuring sensor of Weis and Rolfe and make a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz for the purpose of improving reliability, accuracy, and quality control of the condition of the cutting edges (page2, para5, Note that higher sampling frequency means more accurate).
Claims 13-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis (WO-2010006572-A1) in view of Rolfe (US 4198006 A).
In re claim13: Weis discloses
a strand pelletizer (abstract) comprising:
a cutting mechanism (fig.1) comprising:
a rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.1, 2) with rotor tooth tips (fig.1, 21, shows tooth tips at the end);
a counter-knife (fig.1, 3, referred as cutting bar) with a cutting edge (fig.1 shows cutting edge where number 3 is pointing ); and
a cutting gap (fig.1, 41) is formed between the cutting edge of the counter-knife and the rotor tooth tips of the cutting rotor.
Weis is silent about
a sensor system comprising a gap sensor provided on the stationary counter-knife;
wherein:
the gap sensor is configured to determine a gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism.
However, Rolfe teaches about
a sensor system (fig.3) comprising a gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) provided on the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar)
wherein:
a cutting gap (fig.3, d, referred as knife clearance) is formed between the cutting edge (fig.3, 47) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar) and the rotor tooth tips (fig.3, tips of 34) of the cutting rotor ; and
the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is configured to determine a gap dimension (fig.3, d, referred as knife clearance) of the cutting gap during operation (col1, lines 40-57, describes how during operation clearance measurement can help instead manually stopping and measuring the gap) of the cutting mechanism.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer of Weis and include a stationary counter-knife, sensor system, and gap sensor, as taught by Rolfe, for the purpose of measuring distance between cutting knife and shear bar without requiring manual access thereto and shutdown of the machine (col1, lines 14-63).
In re claim14, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is arranged in the immediate vicinity of the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral ends) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar).
In re claim15, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) at least one of: is directed towards the passing rotor tooth tips (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.2, 16, referred as cutter head).
In re claim16, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is arranged: at least partially recessed in the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36); and behind the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36) with respect to a direction of rotation (fig.3, down arrow shows rotation direction) of the rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.2, 16, referred as cutter head) and faces (fig.2, shows cutter head and counter knife faces each other) the rotationally drivable cutting rotor.
In re claim17, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is arranged at a flank portion (fig.2, shows sensor is at the edge of counter knife 36) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36) that is reached by a rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) with an angle of rotation (fig.2, shows the knife reaches at an angle to the counter knife 36) of less than 20° (fig.2, knife 34 goes from 90˚ when on top to 0˚ or parallel to the peripheral end 47) with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) lies with its rotor tooth tip (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) exactly at the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36).
In re claim18, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe) is arranged at a flank portion (fig.2, shows sensor is at the edge of counter knife 36) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36) that is reached by a rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) with an angle of rotation (fig.2, shows the knife reaches at an angle to the counter knife 36) of less than 5° (fig.2, knife 34 goes from 90˚ when on top to 0˚ or parallel to the peripheral end 47) with respect to the rotationally drivable cutting rotor position in which the rotor tooth (fig.3, 34, referred as knife) lies with its rotor tooth tip (fig.3, knife end is same as tooth tips) exactly at the cutting edge (fig.3, 47, referred as peripheral end) of the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36).
In re claim21, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the sensor system (fig.3) comprises sensors (fig.5, shows array of sensors (sensor 1, sensor 2, sensor 3)) distributed over the length (col4, lines 37-44) of the cutting gap and mounted on the stationary counter-knife (fig.3, 36, referred as shear bar).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis in view of Rolfe as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Buevich (RU-2446917-C2).
In re claim19, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe).
Both Weis and Rolfe are silent about the gap sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 2 kHz.
However, Buevich teaches a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz (page2, para3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer gap measuring sensor of Weis and Rolfe and make a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz for the purpose of improving reliability, accuracy, and quality control of the condition of the cutting edges (page2, para5, Note that higher sampling frequency means more accurate).
In re claim20, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Rolfe further teaches the gap sensor (fig.4, shows sensor probe).
Both Weis and Rolfe are silent about the gap sensor having a sampling frequency of more than 30 kHz.
However, Buevich teaches a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz (page2, para3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer gap measuring sensor of Weis and Rolfe and make a sampling frequency of at least 100 kHz for the purpose of improving reliability, accuracy, and quality control of the condition of the cutting edges (page2, para5, Note that higher sampling frequency means more accurate).
Claim 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weis in view of Rolfe as applied to claim13 above, and further in view of Wolf (EP-1582260-A1).
In re claim22, which depends on claim13: Weis in view of Rolfe discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim13. Weis further discloses a cutting gap adjustment apparatus (fig.2, 44, cutting gap enlarger) configured to adjust the gap dimension of the cutting gap (fig.1, 41); wherein the cutting gap adjustment apparatus comprises a feed device (fig.1, 1, referred as infeed unit) for at least one of: feeding the rotationally drivable cutting rotor (fig.2, 2) towards and away (fig.1, arrow shows feeding towards and away from the counter-knife) from the stationary counter-knife (fig.2, 3, referred as cutting bar);
Weis and Rolfe are silent about adjusting the gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism.
However, Wolf teaches adjusting the gap dimension of the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism (fig.4, fig.5, also see page7, para4,5, describe a safe gap adjusting mechanism).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the strand pelletizer of Weis, Rolfe and include an adjustment device from Wolf for the purpose of maintaining a safe gap between rotor knife/blade and counter knife (page7, para4,5).
In re claim23, which depends on claim22: Weis in view of Rolfe, and Wolf discloses the strand pelletizer according to claim22. Wolf further teaches the feed device (fig.4) comprises: an adjustment drive (fig.4, 40, 42); and a control device (fig.4, 46)) configured to control the adjustment drive (fig.4, 40, 42) to adjust the cutting gap during operation of the cutting mechanism (fig.4, fig.5, also see page7, para4,5, describe a safe gap adjusting mechanism) depending on a signal from one or more sensors of the sensor system (fig.4, 44).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harwarth (DE 19933497 A1) teaches about eddy current sensor (fig.1, 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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.
/M.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
