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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended. Thus, claims 1-15 and 21-24 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the new matter rejection is withdrawn.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US PGPub 20180036911, hereinafter Dubey ‘911) in view of Finkelstein (US 6200380, hereinafter Finkelstein) and Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036693(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘693).
Regarding Claim 1, Dubey ‘911 teaches a system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use), the system comprising: a continuous mixer (figures 1 & 2: slurry mixer 2), the continuous mixer having at least one mixer inlet and a mixer outlet (figure 2: hopper bin 60 and nozzle 68 as inlets & port where slurry 31 exits is an outlet), the continuous mixer being adapted to receive joint compound ingredients including at least one dry ingredient and at least one liquid ingredient via said at least one mixer inlet (figure 2: hopper bin 60 for dry ingredients and nozzle 68 for wet ingredients), to continuously mix the joint compound ingredients to form a mixed joint compound composition, and to discharge the mixed joint compound composition (preceding claim language: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use & slurry mixer 2 is structurally capable of mixing material inputs) from the mixer outlet (figure 2: port where slurry 31 exits is an outlet); a homogenizing device (figures 1 & 3: fiber-slurry mixer 32) downstream of the continuous mixer (see figure 1), the homogenizing device includes a housing defining a homogenizing chamber (figure 3: walls 82, 84, and 86 form a housing defining a chamber) and a rotary mixing element disposed within the homogenizing chamber (figure 3: rotary shaft 88 with paddles 100), the homogenizing device having a homogenizer inlet (figure 3: inlets 73 and 75) and a homogenizer outlet (figure 3: outlet 79) both in fluid communication with the homogenizing chamber, the homogenizing device being adapted to receive in the homogenizing chamber via the homogenizer inlet the mixed joint compound composition from the mixer outlet of the continuous mixer (intended use: the mixed joint compound is a function of raw material input and is therefore considered intended use & figure 1: mixer 32’s inlet takes the discharge from mixer 2), and the rotary mixing element being adapted to impart mixing under shear conditions in the homogenizing chamber by rotating at a speed of no greater than 400 rpm ([0115]: “40 to 300 RPM”).
Dubey ‘911 teaches the at least one mixer inlet of the continuous mixer comprises at least one dry ingredient inlet and at least one wet ingredient inlet (figure 2: hopper bin 60 for dry ingredients and nozzle 68 for wet ingredients).
Dubey ‘911 is silent on the system further comprising: a dry ingredient supply system, the dry ingredient supply system being configured to selectively feed said at least one dry ingredient to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer; a wet ingredient supply system, the wet ingredient supply system is configured to selectively feed at least one liquid ingredient to at least one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer.
Finkelstein teaches the system (figures 1 & 3: entire system) further comprising: a dry ingredient supply system (figure 1: entire system), the dry ingredient supply system being configured to selectively feed said at least one dry ingredient solely (see feeds in figure 1) to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 1: entire system & C5 L1 — 23: “controlled feeder” [controlled feeders are considered a reading on selectively feed]); a wet ingredient supply system (figure 3: entire system), the wet ingredient supply system is configured to selectively feed at least one liquid ingredient to at least one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 3: entire system & C8 L8 — 23: “a predetermined measured amount of liquid is delivered” [controlled metering pumps are considered a reading on selectively feed]) Given the positions of the inlets of the dry and wet ingredients in Dubey ‘911, the supply systems of the combination would clearly be upstream of the mixer.
Dubey ‘911 and Finkelstein are analogous in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing dry and wet ingredients as inputs and continuous mixers as blending equipment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sequential continuous mixers of Dubey ‘911 with the dry and wet ingredient delivery system of Finkelstein in order to produce products with more diverse specifications (Finkelstein C9 L20 — 27).
With respect to the limitation of the dry ingredient supply system including carbonate, this is a recitation of the material worked upon by the apparatus. As indicated in the instant Specification at paragraph 0045, the carbonate is one of the dry ingredients that may be worked upon by the system, and not a structural part of the dry ingredient supply system. It is well-settled that the material worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. The dry ingredient supply system of the combination of Dubey ‘911 and Finkelstein would be fully capable of handling a variety of dry materials, including carbonate, and thus the claim is met.
Although Dubey ‘911 discloses an inlet to the homogenizing device beyond the single inlet and outlet claimed, Dubey ‘693 teaches a homogenizing device (figure 1, mixing section 24) having only an inlet and an outlet (see figure 1). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Dubey ‘911 with any number of inlet and outlet ports, depending on how many materials are desired to be added to the homogenizing device. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that inlets and outlets can be added or removed as necessary depending on how many materials or products are being introduced to or removed from the device.
Regarding Claim 2, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the homogenizing chamber of the homogenizing device has a mixing chamber volume that is at least one tenth of a dispensing volume of a volumetric rate at which homogenized material is adapted to be dispensed from the homogenizing device per minute (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the rotary speed of the fiber-slurry mixer’s [homogenizer’s] mixing element and raw material feed rates and is therefore considered intended use & the fiber-slurry mixer [homogenizer] is structurally capable of the intended use as it has a volume and a rotating agitator).
Regarding Claim 3, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the homogenizing chamber of the homogenizing device has a mixing chamber with a mixing chamber volume that is at least one half of a dispensing volume of a volumetric rate at which homogenized material is adapted to be dispensed from the homogenizing device per minute (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the rotary speed of the fiber-slurry mixer’s [homogenizer’s] mixing element and raw material feed rates and is therefore considered intended use & the fiber-slurry mixer [homogenizer] is structurally capable of the intended use as it has a volume and a rotating agitator).
Regarding Claim 4, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the rotary mixing element of the homogenizing device includes a rotatable shaft that is adapted to be operated with a tip speed at its circumference no greater than 2500 feet/minute (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the rotary speed of the fiber-slurry mixer’s [homogenizer’s] mixing element and is therefore considered intended use & the fiber- slurry mixer [homogenizer] is structurally capable of the intended use as it has a rotary shaft with a measurable diameter and a measurable rotating speed).
Regarding Claim 5, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the homogenizing device is configured to blend together a sufficient quantity of joint compound as to reduce variation of values of a joint compound material property across multiple successively produced volumetric units of mixed joint compound relative to the values of the joint compound material property of the respective multiple volumetric units before passing through the homogenizing device (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the rotary speed of the fiber-slurry mixer’s [homogenizer’s] mixing element and raw material feed rates and is therefore considered intended use & the fiber-slurry mixer [homogenizer] is structurally capable of the intended use as it has mixing capability).
Regarding Claim 6, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 5, wherein the homogenizing chamber of the homogenizing device has a capacity configured to accommodate at least three volumetric units of mixed joint compound therein (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the rotary speed of the fiber-slurry mixer’s [homogenizer’s] mixing element and raw material feed rates and is therefore considered intended use & the fiber-slurry mixer [homogenizer] is structurally capable of the intended use as it has a volume and mixing capability).
Regarding Claim 7, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the continuous mixer includes a housing (figure 2: horizontal chamber 62) and a discharge fitting (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port’s physical shape), the housing defining a mixing chamber (figure 2: horizontal chamber 62) and a discharge outlet configured to dispense mixed joint compound from the mixing chamber (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port discharges slurry), the discharge fitting mounted to the discharge outlet and configured to affect a characteristic of the mixed joint compound being dispensed from the continuous mixer (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port has a defined shape and this shape imparts its form on the slurry leaving mixer 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the continuous mixer includes a housing, the housing defining a mixing chamber (figure 2: horizontal chamber 62).
Dubey ‘911 is silent on the continuous mixer includes a pair of shafts, and the pair of shafts extending within the mixing chamber and being rotatable about a respective longitudinal axis, each shaft including a screw section. Dubey ‘693 teaches the continuous mixer includes a pair of shafts, and the pair of shafts extending within the mixing chamber and being rotatable about a respective longitudinal axis (figure 2a: two rotating shafts), each shaft including a screw section (figures 2a & 4a: first feed section 20 having augers 26).
Dubey ‘911 and Dubey ‘693 are analogous in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing dry and wet ingredients as inputs and continuous mixers as blending equipment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the slurry mixer 2 (figure 2) of Dubey ‘911 with the pair of rotating shafts with screw sections of Dubey ‘693 in order to provide self-cleaning action in the auger sections of the mixer (Dubey ‘693 [0127]).
Regarding Claim 10, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 9, wherein the housing defines a radial flow discharge outlet configured to dispense mixed joint compound in a direction substantially perpendicular relative to the longitudinal axes of the shafts (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port discharges slurry in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axes).
Regarding Claim 11, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1.
Dubey ‘911 is silent on the system further comprising: a dry ingredient mixer, the dry ingredient mixer having at least one dry ingredient mixer inlet and a dry ingredient mixer outlet, the dry ingredient mixer being adapted to receive at least two dry ingredients from the dry ingredient supply system via said at least one dry ingredient mixer inlet, to mix said at least two dry ingredients to form a mixed dry ingredient composition, and to discharge the mixed dry ingredient composition from the dry ingredient mixer outlet to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer.
Finkelstein teaches the system (figures 1 & 3: entire system) further comprising: a dry ingredient supply system (figure 1: entire system), the dry ingredient supply system being configured to selectively feed said at least one dry ingredient to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 1: entire system & C5 L1 — 23: “controlled feeder” [controlled feeders are considered a reading on selectively feed]); a wet ingredient supply system (figure 3: entire system), the wet ingredient supply system is configured to selectively feed at least one liquid ingredient to at least one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 3: entire system & C8 L8 — 23: “a predetermined measured amount of liquid is delivered” [controlled metering pumps are considered a reading on selectively feed]); a dry ingredient mixer, the dry ingredient mixer having at least one dry ingredient mixer inlet and a dry ingredient mixer outlet (figure 1: blender 22 with its multiple dry ingredient inlets and outlet to continuous mixer 58), the dry ingredient mixer being adapted to receive at least two dry ingredients from the dry ingredient supply system via said at least one dry ingredient mixer inlet (figure 1: blender 22 with its multiple dry ingredient inlets), to mix said at least two dry ingredients to form a mixed dry ingredient composition, and to discharge the mixed dry ingredient composition from the dry ingredient mixer outlet to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 1: blender 22 with its outlet to continuous mixer 58).
Dubey ‘911 and Finkelstein are analogous in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing dry and wet ingredients as inputs and continuous mixers as blending equipment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sequential continuous mixers of Dubey ‘911 with the dry and wet ingredient delivery system of Finkelstein in order to produce products with more diverse specifications (Finkelstein C9 L20 — 27).
Regarding Claim 12, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 11, wherein the wet ingredient supply system includes a combined liquid supply line in fluid communication with the one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 3: line between blender 78 and continuous mixer 58), the combined supply line adapted to receive therein at least two liquid ingredients such that said at least two liquid ingredients are blended together in the combined liquid supply line (figure 3: line between blender 78 and continuous mixer 58 carries the blended liquid mixture that was blended in blender 78).
Regarding claim 24, Dubey ‘911 discloses the housing defining a radial flow discharge outlet (figure 3, discharge outlet 79) configured to dispense mixed joint compound (the outlet of Dubey ‘911 would certainly be capable of dispensing any material) in a direction substantially perpendicular relative to the longitudinal axes of the shafts (see direction of discharge flow at item 31 in figure 2). The obviousness of including a pair of parallel shafts in Dubey ‘911 has been established above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036911(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘911) in view of Finkelstein (US 6200380, hereinafter Finkelstein) and Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036693(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘693), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Chinese Patent No. 109248573(A) hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 8, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, wherein the continuous mixer includes a housing (figure 2: horizontal chamber 62) and a discharge fitting (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port’s physical shape is considered a reading on discharge fitting), the housing defining a mixing chamber (figure 2: horizontal chamber 62) and a discharge outlet configured to dispense mixed joint compound from the mixing chamber (figure 2: mixer 2’s slurry 31 outlet port discharges slurry).
Dubey ‘911 is silent on the discharge fitting having a terminal portion with an outlet opening and a perforated plate disposed within the outlet opening. Wang teaches the discharge fitting having a terminal portion with an outlet opening (Dubey ‘911 is relied upon for teaching this preceding claim language) and a perforated plate disposed within the outlet opening (figures 2 & 4: sieve 33).
Dubey ‘911 and Wang are analogous in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing continuous mixers as blending equipment. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the discharge fitting of the mixer 2 [figure 2] of Dubey ‘911 with the sieve plate of Wang in order to prevent bulky product from discharging to the downstream equipment to ease the mixing stress of downstream equipment (Wang google machine translations page 3 third paragraph from the top).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036911(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘911) in view of Finkelstein et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,200,380(B1) hereinafter Finkelstein) and Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036693(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘693), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Halliburton (U.S. Patent No. 1,500,385 hereinafter Halliburton).
Regarding Claim 13, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 1, the system further comprising: a dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer comprises a chute (figure 2: hopper bin 60 and bellows 61), the chute defining a chute passage and an opening in communication with the chute passage (figure 2: hopper bin 60 and bellows 61), the opening of the chute in communication with the dry ingredient supply system to receive at least one dry ingredient in the chute passage through the opening ([0088]), and wherein the wet ingredient supply system includes a sprayer with a nozzle (figure 2: nozzle 68), the sprayer in fluid communication with a supply of water and adapted to selectively spray water in the chute ([0145]: “Liquid pump 6 ... feeds ... aqueous medium, such as water ...” & selectively spray water is considered a function of the choice of aqueous medium and whether to engage or disengage the liquid pump 6 and therefore considered intended use).
Dubey ‘911 is silent on the system further comprising: a dry ingredient supply system, the dry ingredient supply system being configured to selectively feed said at least one dry ingredient to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer; a wet ingredient supply system, the wet ingredient supply system is configured to selectively feed at least one liquid ingredient to at least one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer; wherein a nozzle is disposed within the passage of a chute.
Finkelstein teaches the system further comprising: a dry ingredient supply system (figure 1: entire system), the dry ingredient supply system being configured to selectively feed said at least one dry ingredient to said at least one dry ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 1: entire system & C5 L1 - 23: “controlled feeder” [controlled feeders are considered a reading on selectively feed]); a wet ingredient supply system (figure 3: entire system), the wet ingredient supply system is configured to selectively feed at least one liquid ingredient to at least one wet ingredient inlet of the continuous mixer (figure 3: entire system & C8 L8 — 23: “a predetermined measured amount of liquid is delivered” [controlled metering pumps are considered a reading on selectively feed]).
Halliburton teaches a nozzle is disposed within the passage of a chute (figure 4: nozzle 8a is disposed along the passage of hopper 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sequential continuous mixers of Dubey ‘911 with the dry and wet ingredient delivery system of Finkelstein in order to produce products with more diverse specifications (Finkelstein C9 L20 — 27). Dubey ‘911 and Halliburton are analogous in the field of in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing dry and wet ingredients. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hopper bin of Dubey ‘911 with the nozzle of Halliburton in order to help draw in the dry ingredients into the mixer via inducting suction (Halliburton P3 L88 — 95).
Regarding Claim 14, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 13, wherein Dubey ‘911 in view of Halliburton further teaches the nozzle is disposed in a lower half of the chute nearer the continuous mixer (figure 4: nozzle 8a is disposed in the lower part of hopper 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Dubey ‘911 teaches the system (figure 1: entire system) for continuously manufacturing a joint compound (intended use: the preceding claim language is considered a function of the raw ingredients input into the system and is therefore considered intended use) according to claim 13, wherein Dubey ‘911 in view of Halliburton further teaches the nozzle is configured to dispense water (Dubey ‘911 is relied upon for teaching water as the aqueous medium [0145]) as a directional spray of droplets (figure 4: nozzle 8a’s spray is directed along a specific direction of mixing chamber 7) with the droplets spraying out of about one hundred eighty degrees or less of a circumference of the nozzle (intended use: the preceding claim language is a function of the pressure of liquid line behind the nozzle and is therefore considered intended use & nozzle 8a is considered structurally capable of the 180° or less circumference spray direction).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US PGPub 20180036911, hereinafter Dubey ‘911) in view of Finkelstein (US 6200380, hereinafter Finkelstein) and Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036693(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘693), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martel et al. (US PGPub 2003/0227817, hereinafter Martel).
Regarding Claim 21, Dubey ‘911 is silent to a perforated plate in the discharge fitting. Martel teaches a mixing apparatus for combining powdered solids and liquids (paragraph 0002) including a discharge fitting (figure 3, outlet 88 and associated dome) that comprises a perforated plate (discharge partition 94; paragraph 0026, “a perforated cap”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have included the perforated plate of Martel in the apparatus of Dubey ‘911 for the purpose of maintaining any unmixed lumps within the mixer while allowing well-mixed product to pass to the outlet (Martel: paragraph 0026).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US PGPub 20180036911, hereinafter Dubey ‘911) in view of Finkelstein (US 6200380, hereinafter Finkelstein) and Dubey et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0036693(A1) hereinafter Dubey ‘693), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brennan, Jr. (US 3419250, hereinafter Brennan).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Dubey ‘911 is silent to baffling or a slide gate in the discharge fitting. Brennan teaches a continuous mixer (figure 1) including a discharge fitting (discharge housing 80) that has both baffling (figure 5, baffles 130 and 132) and a moveable slide gate (slide plate 78). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Dubey ‘911 with the baffles and slide gate of Brennan for the purpose of controlling the flow of material out of the apparatus, including optionally stopping the outflow if desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the Applicant’s arguments are largely the same as those that have been previously submitted. The Examiner’s positions relating to these arguments have not changed.
With respect to the arguments relating specifically to the content of the amendments to claim 1, the above rejections explain how each and every feature of the claimed invention is taught in the prior art. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the rejection includes impermissible hindsight and alleges that there is no credible reason to modify the references as detailed in the above rejections. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The Applicant has not pointed out any information used in the above rejection that could only be gleaned from the instant application, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
With respect to the allegation of no credible reason to modify, the above rejections all contain rationale to make the proposed modifications. It is noted that rationale is not limited to direct motivations from the references themselves, but can also come from general knowledge of the art. See MPEP 2141 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Applicant has not provided any specific details as to why the above-presented reasons are not credible, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Dubey ‘911 is non-analogous art to the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Dubey ‘911 and Finkelstein are analogous in the field of industrial scale production of building materials utilizing dry and wet ingredients as inputs and continuous mixers as blending equipment. While they may not produce the same specific mixtures or use the same specific input ingredients, it is clear that the references cited are at least in the same field of endeavor of continuous mixing of building materials from solid and liquid ingredients, and would be reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of continuously producing such mixtures. The Applicant goes on to allege that Dubey ‘911 “fails to teach or suggest any techniques for homogenizing joint compound such as recited in amended claim 1” (remarks, page 9). However, the Applicant has not pointed out what any of these techniques allegedly not taught by Dubey ‘911 might be. As can be seen in the above rejections, Dubey ‘911 and Finkelstein teach every limitation of claim 1, and thus it is not clear what “techniques” exactly have been missed. Further, given that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, “techniques” (presumably methods of operation of the device) are not germane to the issue of patentability. See MPEP 2114 and In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that the Examiner’s interpretation of field of endeavor and the problems faced by the inventor are too narrow. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant appears to be arguing that the field of endeavor of the claimed invention and the problems faced by the inventor should be limited only to the specific end product being mixed by in the instant application. It is the Examiner’s position that this is an unnecessary narrowing of these concepts. Given that the structures present in the Applicant’s claims are met by the prior art, it is clear that there is some similarity between devices that mix joint compound and devices that mix other solid-liquid mixtures. The idea that one of ordinary skill in the art would only see a relationship between the device of the instant invention and other devices that specifically mix joint compound is absurd. Just as one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that, for example, a stand mixer could mix a variety of edible materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand the similarities between mixers intended for mixing different specific materials. The fact that the Applicant has been unable to point out any structural difference between the prior art and the instant invention is further evidence that these devices are sufficiently similar as to be considered within the same field of endeavor, or, at the very least, solving similar problems. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the Examiner’s proposed field of endeavor (continuous mixing of building materials from solid and liquid ingredients, in the previous paragraph) “is not supported by the explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the parent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” The Examiner notes that paragraph 0002 of the instant application explicitly states that the invention is for the “continuous production of compositions”, paragraph 0003 states that such compositions are used in construction (“In the construction of buildings…”), and paragraph 0004 states that the compounds are “supplied as a dry powder, to which an amount of water is added.” The Examiner thus fails to see how the characterization of the field of endeavor as the continuous production of building materials from solid and liquid ingredients is in any way inaccurate or unsupported by the disclosure. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that “when all of the claimed features are considered, the applied references do not render claim 1 unpatentable” (remarks, page 10). However, aside from the material worked upon by the apparatus (well-settled to be irrelevant in apparatus claims), the Applicant has completely failed to point out any claimed features that have not been disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art. If further features of the invention are not rendered obvious by the prior art, the Examiner strongly suggests that those features be claimed. As it currently stands, the generic claiming of a continuous mixer, a homogenizing device, and ingredient supply systems simply does not represent a patentable advance over what is known in the art. What additional structure is present that is not known? Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Dubey ‘911 is not directed to the manufacture of a joint compound as recited in claim 1. Whether or not this is true, it is well-settled that the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Dubey ‘911 does not disclose a device that is adapted to reduce variation in at least one material property of the joint compound (remarks, page 10). As noted above, the material worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. Further, the apparatus of Dubey ‘911 is explicitly stated to be capable of producing a uniform mixture (paragraph 0021), which would reduce material property variation in the product. Thus, Dubey ‘911 is clearly fully capable of performing this function, and this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Dubey ‘911 does not disclose or render obvious a “homogenizing device” (remarks, pages 10-11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, Dubey ‘911 discloses a device for producing a uniform mixture (paragraph 0021), and thus the device would clearly be considered a “homogenizing device.”
The Applicant argues that the material discharged from the fiber-slurry mixer 32 of Dubey ‘911 “has more variation than what is discharged from the slurry mixer 2.” The Examiner sees no basis from which this conclusion was drawn. As stated above, Dubey ‘911 states that the device produces a uniform mixture. Merriam-Webster defines “homogenize” as “to make uniform in structure or composition throughout.” Thus, it seems clear that the production of a uniform mixture could broadly be considered to be “homogenizing,” and this argument is not persuasive.
The alleged introduction of a new ingredient cited by the Applicant as evidence that Dubey ‘911 does not include a homogenizing device is irrelevant. Homogenizing is about what the device does, not about what is introduced or removed therefrom. The device of Dubey ‘911 is stated to produce a uniform mixture and thus it is a homogenizing device because it homogenizes whatever is put into it. It is absurd to argue that adding an additional ingredient somehow changes the fundamental function of the device. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Dubey ‘911 does not teach a “"homogenizing device…adapted to receive in the homogenizing chamber via the homogenizer inlet the mixed joint compound composition from the mixer outlet of the continuous mixer" in the manner recited in claim 1” (remarks, page 12). This is plainly incorrect. The homogenizing device of Dubey ‘911 does receive output from the mixer via its inlet (see figure of the Dubey ‘911) and thus is clearly “adapted to” (i.e. capable of) receiving such. It is unclear what the Applicant means by “in the manner recited in claim 1.” Claim 1 is an apparatus claim, and thus is concerned with structure. “In the manner” would appear to be a reference to a method step, which is irrelevant to apparatus claims. As held in In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), “the manner or method in which such machine is utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.” Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that modifying Dubey ‘911 with Dubey ‘639 would render Dubey ‘911 unsuitable for its intended purpose. The Examiner sees no evidence to support this statement. As stated in the above rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that inlets and outlets can be added or removed as necessary depending on how many materials or products are being introduced to or removed from the device. Providing a number of inlets or outlets that are appropriate for the desired mixture would immediately be understood as obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Dubey ‘639 was introduced to meet the new matter limitations of a claim 1 that have since been amended out. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Claire Wang can be reached on 571-270-1051. 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774