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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the proposed modification of the cited references would not have been obvious and the proposed modifications (paraphrasing) would render Daester et al. unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation (Remarks, page 8). The Office’s proposed modification would entail replacing Daester’s hopper 1 having multiple chambers with Kitagishi’s tank 34 having a single chamber with two outlets and Daester et al. teaches the system operates such that a first raw material is output from the first gating device 9.1 of the first hopper chamber 1.1, as supplied from a major storage hopper I and a second raw material is output from the second gating device 9.2 of the second hopper chamber as supplied from major hopper II and Daester et al. teaches the output from the separate hopper chambers is for combined reception in weighing chamber 11 which is then fed to the mixer 37. The Office’s proposed modification to replace Daester’s hopper 1 with Kitagishi’s tank 34 would change Daester’s system from one adapted for supplying different raw materials from different hopper chambers to one adapted for supplying a single material from two outlets and would change the principle of operation of Daester et al. (Remarks, pages 8-9).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner contends that the principle of operation of Daester et al. is proportioning and mixing (“apparatus for feeding, weigh proportioning and mixing”, Abstract) materials including granular materials (col. 3, line 6) using feed hoppers (such as hopper 1), weighing hoppers (such as hopper 11) and a mixer (mixer 37).
Second, it appears that Daester et al. states that the device may be operated where each chamber is filled with the same material (col. 1, lines 39-45):
PNG
media_image1.png
170
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Daester et al. also seems to indicate that they may be filled with different material (col. 8, lines 40-45), but regardless: The device of Daester et al. may be operated such that both chambers are filled with the same “first flowable material”. Moreover, Daester et al. indicates the same material could be delivered in two separate quantities (col. 2, lines 6-19). It is noted that Daester et al. also makes clear that the system is not limited to that which is shown in Fig. 1 as Daester et al. teaches a number of configurations may be used (including more than two chambers, col. 4, line 17, multiple weighing hoppers 11, col. 4, line 19, and there may be multiples of other components, col. 5, line 13-17) and Deaster et al. teaches the hopper 1 may comprise only one chamber (“one or more separate chambers”, Abstract) and would therefore be operated with only one component in the hopper. Thus, the Examiner contends modification with Kitagishi et al. would not change the principle of operation of Daester et al. and the argument is not persuasive.
Also, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, the person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the single chamber hopper of Kitagishi et al. (tank 34) having two outlets for discharging two different quantities of material (large and small quantities, Kitagishi et al., pars. [0005] and [0008]) in order to achieve more accurate metering.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (Remarks, pages 9-10), 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). Further, the Applicant has not pointed out any information in the rejection that could only be gleaned from their own disclosure, and thus there is no evidence of hindsight reasoning.
Again, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, supra., In re Jones, supra. , and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., supra. In this case, both Otake et al. and Hutchinson et al. disclose processing of plastic material (Hutchinson et al., “PET”, Abstract, Otake et al., para. [0028]) where weighing and mixing are required (Hutchinson et al., using a weigh-scale blender, para. [0026], Fig. 5, Otake et al., “loss-in-weight automated supply device”, para. [0067], mixing, para. [0045]) and Daester et al. teaches a device for weighing and mixing for use in plastic processing (col. 1, line 5). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the device of claim 1 in order to achieve accurate metering (Daester et al., col. 3, line 52) and decrease weighing time (Kitagishi et al., pars. [0063]-[0064]) and to provide mixing (Daester et al., mixer 37) for processing plastic material.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daester et al. (US 3822866) in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317) and Kruse (US 5709266A).
Regarding claim 1, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit
apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nevertheless, Daester et al. discloses a weighing and mixing system (apparatus for feeding, weight proportioning and mixing of flowable materials, Abstract) which would be fully capable of being used for preparation of a mixed masterbatch comprised of at least two original masterbatches, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
651
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Daester et al. discloses: At least two weighing units (a weighing unit is the apparatus shown in Fig. 1 which comprises hopper 1 and weighing hopper 11 and more than one such “weighing units” may be provided, col. 4, lines 16-21), each weighing unit would be fully capable of supplying a separate original masterbatch; a chamber (mixer 37, Fig. 1) configured to receive final batches of original masterbatch from each of the weighing units (which are fully capable of producing a mixed masterbatch); a computer (controller, col. 5, line 41, col. 7, line 50, digital, col. 3, line 63, for full automation, col. 1, lines 32-33) configured to control each of the separate weighing units (Fig. 1) to supply the final batches of original masterbatches, at a required weight (“weighing controller”, col. 3, line 57, col. 8, line 33) for each of the individual original masterbatches, at a required weight for each of the individual original masterbatches, to the chamber.
Daester et al. discloses each of said at least two weighing units comprises: A material hopper (hopper 1, Fig. 1) comprising at least one first opening having a feeding mechanism (gating means 9.1, Fig. 1) and at least one second opening having a feeding system (gating means 9.2). The material hopper, configured for plastics processing (col. 1, line 5, line 22), would be fully capable of holding and feeding an original masterbatch. Daester et al. discloses a weighing hopper (hopper 11) comprising an opening (outlet 11.1 with closure 17, Fig. 1) for dispensing a weighted final batch of original masterbatch; a load cell (comprising spring 14, beam 13, and detector 15, Fig. 1) for determining a weight of original masterbatch contained within the weighing hopper.
Daester et al. discloses the computer (controller) controls the feeding mechanism (remote-controlled drive means 10.1, col. 3, line 20) for the at least one first opening to cause a first amount of original masterbatch to pass from the material hopper through the at least one first opening into the weighing hopper for weighing by the load cell (Fig. 1), but Daester et al. does not expressly teach that the first amount is an amount less than a set point.
However, Kitagishi et al. discloses a weighing and mixing system comprising a hopper (supply tank 34) with two openings, a weighing hopper (weighing hopper 32) with a load cell (load cell 37), and a computer (CPU 30) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
783
958
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kitagishi et al. further discloses the computer is configured to: Control the feeding mechanism (CPU controls each unit of the device, para. [0030]) for the at least one first opening (shutter 41) to cause a first amount (a large amount, para. [0005]) of material (such as original masterbatch) to pass from the material hopper through the at least one first opening into the weighing hopper for weighing by the load cell, wherein the first amount is an amount less than a set point (allowable error range, para. [0013]) for the required weight of the final batch of the original masterbatch; control the feeding system (discharge device 36) for the at least one second opening (shutter 42) to cause a second amount of the original material (medium or small, para. [0008]) to pass from the material hopper through the at least one second opening into the weighing hopper, wherein the second amount is an amount that is fed into the weighing hopper until a total weight weighed by the load cell is within a predetermined tolerance of the set point (allowable error range, para. [0013]) for the required weight of the final batch; upon determining that a weight of the original material (such as an original masterbatch) weighed in the weighing hopper by the load cell is within a predetermined tolerance of the set point for the required weight of the final batch of the original material, causing the material in the weighing hopper to flow (discharge gate 43 is opened, para. [0013]) from the weighing hopper (into chute 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein weighing units comprise a material hopper (Daester et al., hopper 1, Kitagishi et al., tank 34) for holding an original masterbatch; the material hopper comprising at least one first opening having a feeding mechanism (Kitagishi et al., discharge device 35) for feeding a first amount (Kitagishi et al., a large amount, para. [0005]) of original masterbatch and at least one second opening having a feeding system (Kitagishi et al., discharge device 36) for feeding a second amount (Kitagishi et al., medium or small, para. [0008]) of original masterbatch; wherein the device and the computer are configured as taught by Kitagishi et al. wherein the computer (Kitagishi et al., CPU controls each unit of the device, para. [0030]) is configured to control the feeding mechanism for the at least one first opening (Kitagishi et al., shutter 41) to cause a first amount (Kitagishi et al., a large amount, para. [0005]) of the original masterbatch to pass from the material hopper through the at least one first opening into the weighing hopper for weighing by the load cell, wherein the first amount is an amount less than a set point (Kitagishi et al., allowable error range, para. [0013]) for the required weight of the final batch of the original masterbatch; control the feeding system (Kitagishi et al., discharge device 36) for the at least one second opening (Kitagishi et al., shutter 42) to cause a second amount (Kitagishi et al., medium or small, para. [0008]) of the original masterbatch to pass from the material hopper through the at least one second opening into the weighing hopper, wherein the second amount is an amount that is fed into the weighing hopper until a total weight weighed by the load cell is within a predetermined tolerance of the set point for the required weight of the final batch of the original masterbatch; and upon determining that a weight of the original masterbatch weighed in the weighing hopper by the load cell is within a predetermined tolerance of the set point for the required weight of the final batch of the original masterbatch, causing the original masterbatch in the weighing hopper (Kitaghishi et al., discharge gate 43 is opened, para. [0013]) to flow from the weighing hopper into the chamber (Daester et al., mixer 37).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device and computer as taught by Kitagishi et al. in order to more accurately meter the flow of material into the chamber.
The above cited references do not disclose the feeding system at the second opening is configured to feed the second amount of the original masterbatch one pellet at a time.
However, Luchinger discloses a device (dosage dispensing unit, Abstract) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of accurately dispensing solids (particles, para. [0039]) and Luchinger teaches that the feeding device may be used with particles of various shapes (para. [0006]) and is capable of being adjusted for particle size wherein a single particle may be dispensed (para. [0039]) and Kruse discloses a device (pellet dispenser) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of accurately dispensing solids and Kruse teaches that device may dispense single pellets (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. by substituting the feeding system (Daester et al., gating means 9.2, Kitagishi et al., discharge device 36) for one in which the feeding system at the second opening is configured to feed the second amount of the original masterbatch one pellet at a time.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to feed individual particles of a solid component in order to achieve very accurate dosing.
Insomuch as Daester et al. does not explicitly disclose the computer is further configured to control weighing of the separate original masterbatches at separate weighing units in parallel with one another, O’Callaghan teaches a blending apparatus having a control unit (control box 84) separate weighing units (comprising hoppers 80, valve 81, and hoppers 4, 5, or 6 along with load cells 47) where the output of the hoppers are fed to an extruder (Fig. 8) and O’Callaghan further teaches that the controller is configured to control weighing of separate weighing units in parallel with one another (being operable for regulating simultaneous discharge of additive material from selected hoppers in a pre-selected ratio, col. 1, lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein the computer is further configured to control weighing of the separate original masterbatches at separate weighing units in parallel with one another.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the computer so that parallel operation could be achieved in order to conserve time.
Regarding claim 5, Daester et al. discloses a gating means (9.1, Fig. 2) as a first feeding mechanism, but does not disclose what the gating means is.
However, Kitagashi et al. teaches that the feeding mechanism of the first opening is a screw (screw conveyor 35b, para. [0005], Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein the hopper feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is chosen from: a flap, an auger, screw, vibratory mechanism, and paddles.
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to substitute one hopper feeding mechanism for another known configuration and thereby provide the predictable result of feeding material to a weighing hopper. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 9, Daester et al. discloses the computer is further configured to control passage of the final batch of the original masterbatch through the opening of the weighing hopper by operating a flap (butterfly disk 17 or flap valve, col. 4, line 10, Fig. 1) at the opening (butterfly disk 17 is powered by actuator 18) or otherwise Kitagishi et al. teaches the computer (CPU 30) is further configured to control passage of the material by operating a flap (discharge gate 43, para. [0013], [0014]) on the weighing hopper (32, Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein the computer is further configured to control passage of the final batch of the original masterbatch through the opening of the weighing hopper by operating a flap at the opening.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an automated flap as a known means of discharging and thereby achieve the predictable result of discharging a weighing hopper.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daester et al. (US 3822866) in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317) and Kruse (US 5709266A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Moller (US 5148943).
Regarding claim 2, Daester et al. discloses there may be one or more weighing units (which comprise hopper 1 and weighing hopper 11, more than one may be provided, col. 4, lines 16-21) and Daester et al. further discloses a funnel (casing 22) for loading a chamber (casing 36 and mixer 37).
Daester et al. does not explicitly teach multiple weight units feeding into a common funnel.
However, Moller teaches an apparatus comprising a computer (computer control device 30) weight units (comprising hoppers 15, hoppers 12 with load cells, col. 4, line 50, etc., Fig. 2) wherein the individual weight units feed into a common funnel (common hopper 30 with conical discharge end 30b, Fig. 2) prior to discharging into an extruder (extrusion machine 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein each of the at least two weighing units is configured to feed final batches of original masterbatch to the chamber through a common funnel.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to feed the weight units into a common hopper in order to load a common mixing device or an extruder for mixing/extruding substances requiring more than one batch mix.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daester et al. (US 3822866) in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317) and Kruse (US 5709266A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of the previously attached translation of JP S5027380 (hereinafter “JP ‘380”), Maguire (US 6111206) hereinafter “Maguire II”, Hikawa (previously attached translation of KR 1000389228B1), Post (US 20050269367) and Conair (previously attached non-patent literature).
Regarding claim 3, the above cited references for claim 1 above do not expressly disclose wherein the computer is further configured to discontinue passing original masterbatch through the first feeding mechanism for the at least one first opening when a weight of original masterbatch in the weighing hopper (i.e. the weight of the first amount) is determined, by the load cell, to be 0.1g to 0.2g less than the set point.
However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising from passing an amount 0.1 g to 0.2 g less than a set point, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
Further, Maguire II teaches a mixing system for plastic resins (col. 1, lines 13-14) and further teaches a feeding system accurate to within 0.1 gram (col. 6, line 60) and JP ‘380 also teaches an apparatus for weighing granular products such as resin pellets (page 7, lines 7-8) using a material hopper (first storage hopper 1) where large (page 7, line 11) and small amounts (page 7, line 12) are metered in a two-step operation (page 7, line 5) to achieve a set point (specified weight, page 7, lines 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. by using a first opening feeding mechanism, such as the feeder of Maguire II, wherein the computer is configured to discontinue passing the original masterbatch through the first feeding mechanism for the at least one first opening when a weight of the original masterbatch in the weighing hopper is determined, by the load cell, to be 0.1-0.2 g less than the set point for the required weight for the final batch of original masterbatch.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to discontinue feeding from the first opening feeding mechanism when the weight in the hopper is 0.1g to 0.2 g less than the set point in order to ensure that the set point is not exceeded by the first opening feeding mechanism (which Maguire II teaches meters to within ±0.1 g, col. 6, line 60).
Insomuch as the above references do not expressly disclose a feeding system for the second opening capable of delivering a second amount after the first amount (which would necessarily be less than 0.1-0.2 g), Hikawa discloses a device which is analogous art at least in that it deals with the problem of feeding particulate material with high precision and Hikawa further discloses a feeder (powder supply device, para. [0031]) for a hopper (hopper 11) that is capable of delivering portions as small as about 0.03 grams (para. [0072]). Likewise, Post discloses a device for feeding particulate material that is capable of delivering portions as small as about 0.01 grams (10 milligrams, para. [0048]). Further, Conair discloses a feeder (page 2) which would be fully capable of dispensing single pellets (granules, page 6) and is able to feed at rates as small as 0.01 gram/second (page 5, first table, 5th column, system “HX”) or 0.02 gram/second (page 5, first table, 5th column, system “GLX”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein after discontinuing passage of the original masterbatch through the feeding mechanism for the at least one first opening, operate the feeding system for the at least one second opening to deliver the second amount of the original masterbatch to the weighing hopper until a determination is made, by the load cell, that a weight of the original masterbatch in the weighing hopper is within a predetermined tolerance of the set point for the required weight for the final batch of original masterbatch.
The person or ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a multi-step (JP ‘380, two step, page 7, line 5) process for metering in order increase weighing efficiency and decrease weighing time (Kitagishi, para. [0064], Abstract) and to use particulate feeding devices of known precision to meter the amounts.
Regarding claim 4, Daester et al. does not expressly disclose a tolerance of 0.03 g.
However, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve a tolerance as low as practicable and Hikawa and Post, who are relied upon to teach delivering a second amount as discussed in claim 3 above, further teaches a feeder (Hikawa, powder supply device, para. [0031], Post, small screw 18B) for a hopper (Hikawa, hopper 11, Post, container 5) that is capable of delivering portions as small as about 0.03 grams (Hikawa, para. [0072]) or less (Post, 0.01 g, para. [0048]). Further, Conair discloses a feeder (page 2) which would be fully capable of dispensing single pellets (granules, page 6) and able to feed at rates as small as 0.02 gram/second (page 5, first table, 5th column, system “GLX”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 3 to further include wherein the computer is configured to operate the feeding system for the at least one second opening to deliver the second amount of original masterbatch to the weighing hopper to achieve set point for the required weight for the final batch of original masterbatch within a tolerance of 0.03g.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve a tolerance within 0.03 grams in order to precisely meter components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daester et al. (US 3822866) in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317) and Kruse (US 5709266A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of the previously attached translation of JP S5027380B1 (hereinafter “JP ‘380”).
Regarding claim 6, Daester et al. does not expressly disclose the feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is a flap that opens for permitting the original masterbatch to fall by gravity from the material hopper into the weighing hopper.
However, JP ‘380 teaches an apparatus for weighing granular products such as resin pellets (page 7, lines 7-8) using a material hopper (first storage hopper 1) and weighing hoppers and having a control device (12) and wherein the material hopper has two openings (discharge port 3 and outlet 17, Fig. 1) and wherein the first opening (discharge port 3, Fig. 1) has a flap (gate 2, Fig. 1) which is controlled by the controller ( controller 12 via gate switch 37, Fig. 1) to feed a weighing hopper (first weighing hopper 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein the feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is a flap that opens for permitting the original masterbatch to fall by gravity from the material hopper into the weighing hopper.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a flap as a known means of discharging and thereby achieve the predictable result of discharging a material hopper.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daester et al. (US 3822866) in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317), Kruse (US 5709266A) and Abe et al. (US 20150001755).
Regarding claim 10, it is well-settled that the material worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Nevertheless, the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 disclose a weighing and mixing system (Daester et al., apparatus for feeding, weight proportioning and mixing of flowable materials, Abstract) which would be fully capable of being used for producing a homogenous masterbatch from two or more separate original masterbatches.
Daester et al. does not expressly disclose an extruder.
However, O’Callaghan teaches a blending apparatus having a control unit (control box 84) separate weighing units (comprising hoppers 80, valve 81, and hoppers 4, 5, or 6 along with load cells 47) where the output of the hoppers are fed to an extruder (Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 wherein the output of the weighing and mixing system is fed to an extruder.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an extruder in order to configure the device for blending plastics with additives (O’Callaghan, col .1, lines 5-10).
Insomuch as the above cited references do not explicitly disclose melting, Abe et al. discloses an extrusion device for blending plastic with additives (Abstract) where the extruder is configured to melt the material (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Daester et al. wherein the extruder is configured to melt the material.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to configure the extruder for melting material in order to facilitate mixing and kneading.
The above cited references for claim 1 do not disclose a pelletizing machine.
However, Abe et al. further teaches a pelletizing machine (pelletizer 218).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of the above cited references for claim 1 by further including a pelletizing machine.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a pelletizer in order to make a pellet product.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson (US 20040155374) in view of Daester et al. (US 3822866), Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317), Kruse (US 5709266A), and Konerman (US 20100220546).
Regarding claim 11, Hutchinson et al. discloses a method of producing a homogenous masterbatch (blended flakes which have been color corrected which may later be combined with V-PET, Abstract, “color concentrate”, para. [0019]) that is a combination of two or more separate original masterbatches (a pure color masterbatch, para. [0036] and a batch of colored R-PET flakes, para. [0016]) using a weighing and mixing system (“a weigh scale blender”, para. [0042]).
Hutchinson et al. does not disclose the weighing and mixing system of claim 1.
However, the weighing and mixing system of claim 1 would be fully capable of performing the method of Hutchinson et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hutchinson et al. to include the weighing and mixing system of claim 1.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the weighing and mixing system of claim 1 as a known means of weighing and mixing in order to achieve the predictable result of feeding an extruder with batches of material or the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the system of claim 1 above in order to more accurately (by first metering large quantities of masterbatches in the weight units and then feeding small quantities as discussed for claim 1 above) feed a mixing device.
In modifying Hutchinson et al. with the device of claim 1, the method would further include: Placing each of at least two original masterbatches (Hutchinson et al., pure color masterbatch, para. [0036], and a “masterbatch” comprising green colored R-PET flakes, para. [0016]) in a separate one of the at least two weighing units (Daester et al., weight units shown above for claim 1, O’Callaghan, weighing units comprising hoppers 80, valves 81, and hoppers 4, 5, or 6 along with load cells 47); activating the weighing and mixing system to obtain required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches (Daester et al., using weighing hoppers 11 discussed for claim 1 above, Hutchinson et al. discloses metering the pure color masterbatch, para. [0036], and dosing the green R-PET flakes, para. [0016] in step 150, Fig. 1).
Hutchinson et al. does not expressly disclose mixing the required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches in the chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch.
However, Konermann teaches a mixer (mixing container 10, Fig. 2) for mixing granulated material (para. [0002]) prior to feeding it to an extruder (extruder 50, Fig, 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Hutchinson et al. to further include mixing the required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches in the mixing chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to mix the materials prior to extrusion in order to ensure they are well mixed.
Hutchinson further discloses: Melting (understood to be melted, especially since the extruder is operated above, table 4, the melt point, table 5) the mixed masterbatch in an extruder (such as a twin-screw extruder, pars. [0032] and [0041]); passing the melted mixture through a pelletizing machine (strand-cut pelletizing, para. [0032], claim 44) to form pellets of a homogenous masterbatch (the homogenous masterbatch comprising blended flakes which may be combined with V-PET, Abstract, para. [0018]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otake et al. (US 20050245685) in view of Daester et al. (US 3822866), Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A), O’Callaghan (US 6155709), Luchinger (US 20120132317), Kruse (US 5709266A), and Konerman (US 20100220546).
Regarding claim 11, Otake et al. discloses a method of producing a homogenous masterbatch (mixture of masterbatch pellets is reprocessed or undergoes “repelletization” to form a single masterbatch, para. [0046]) that is a combination of two or more separate original masterbatches (masterbatch pellets group A and masterbatch pellets group B, Abstract) which includes weighing (such as by using a “loss-in-weight automated supply”, para. [0067]) and mixing (para. [0045]).
Otake et al. does not disclose the weighing and mixing system of claim 1.
However, the weighing and mixing system of claim 1 would have been fully capable of performing the method of Otake et al.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Otake et al. to include the weighing and mixing system of claim 1.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the weighing and mixing system of claim 1 as a known means of weighing and mixing in order to achieve the predictable result of feeding an extruder (Otake et al., uniaxial or biaxial extruders, para. [0046]) with a mixture of two masterbatches or the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the system of claim 1 above in order to more accurately (by first metering large quantities of masterbatches in the weighing units and then feeding small quantities as discussed for claim 1 above) feed a mixing device.
In modifying Otake et al. with the device of claim 1, the method would include: Placing each of at least two original masterbatches (Otake et al., masterbatch pellets A and masterbatch pellets B) in a separate one of the at least two weighing units (Daester et al., weight units shown above for claim 1, O’Callaghan, weighing units comprising hoppers 80, valves 81, and hoppers 4, 5, or 6 along with load cells 47 ); activating the weighing and mixing system to obtain required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches (Daester et al., using weighing hoppers 11 discussed for claim 1 above, Otake et al., precision weighing, para. [0043]).
Otake et al. does not expressly disclose mixing the required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches in the chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch.
However, Otake et al. does teach mixing resin pellets and masterbatch in a mixer before extrusion (para. [0005]) and Konermann teaches a mixer (mixing container 10, Fig. 2) for mixing granulated material (para. [0002]) prior to feeding it to an extruder (extruder 50, Fig, 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Otake et al. to further include mixing the required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches in the mixing chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to mix the materials prior to extrusion in order to ensure they are well mixed.
Otake et al. further discloses: Melting (Molten, para. [0045]) the mixed masterbatch in an extruder (uniaxial or biaxial extruder, para. [0045]); passing the melted mixture through a pelletizing machine (“repelletization” after extrusion and the use of a pelletizer to form pellets such as in para. [0048], [0049], etc.) to form pellets of a homogenous masterbatch (a single masterbatch, para. [0045]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,814,295.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the difference in scope is minor and patentably indistinct between the claims being compared.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,814,295 hereinafter “’295” in view of Kitagishi et al. (previously attached translation of JP H0755542A).
Regarding claim 5, ‘295 does not claim the hopper feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is chosen from: a flap, an auger, screw, vibratory mechanism, and paddles.
However, Kitagishi et al. discloses a weighing and mixing system comprising a hopper (supply tank 34) with two openings, a weighing hopper (weighing hopper 32) with a load cell (load cell 37) and Kitagishi et al. further teaches that the feeding mechanism of the first opening is a screw (screw conveyor 35b, para. [0005], Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the first material hopper feeding mechanism of ‘295 claim 1 wherein the hopper feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is chosen from: a flap, an auger, screw, vibratory mechanism, and paddles and thereby providing only the predictable result of feeding material to a weighing hopper. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,814,295 hereinafter “’’295” in view of JP S5027380B1 (previously attached translation of JP S5027380B1) hereinafter “JP ‘380”.
Regarding claim 6, ‘295 does not claim the feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is a flap that opens for permitting original masterbatch to fall by gravity from the material hopper into the weighing hopper.
However, JP ‘380 teaches the first opening (discharge port 3, Fig. 1) has a flap (gate 2, Fig. 1) to feed a weighing hopper (first weighing hopper 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the first material hopper feeding mechanism of ‘295 claim 1 wherein the hopper feeding mechanism of the at least one first opening is a flap and thereby providing only the predictable result of feeding material to a weighing hopper. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claims 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,814,295 hereinafter “’295” in view of Konerman (US 20100220546) and Abe et al. (US 20150001755).
Regarding claim 10, ‘295 does not claim an extruder nor a pelletizing machine.
However, Abe et al. discloses an extrusion device for blending plastic with additives (Abstract) where the extruder is configured to melt the material (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘295 wherein an extruder is configured to melt the material in order to facilitate mixing and kneading.
Abe et al. further teaches a pelletizing machine (pelletizer 218).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘295 by including a pelletizer machine in order to make a pellet product.
Regarding claim 11, ‘295 does not claim mixing each of the at least two original masterbatches in the chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch. However, Konermann teaches a method for feeding granulated material or powder to an extruder (para. [0002]) using weighing units (weighing containers 12, Fig. 1) and further teaches the weighing units are discharged into a mixing chamber (mixing container 10) prior to being fed to an extruder (extruder 50, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘295 wherein the method further comprises: Mixing the required weights of each of the at least two original masterbatches in the chamber to produce a mixed masterbatch and melting the mixed masterbatch in an extruder.
‘295 does not claim passing the melted mixture through a pelletizing machine to form pellets of a homogenous masterbatch.
However, Abe et al. teaches a pelletizing machine (pelletizer 218) which is fed melt (melt 106) from an extruder (extruder 104, Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the claimed invention of ‘295 wherein the method includes passing the melted mixture through a pelletizing machine to form pellets of a homogenous masterbatch in order to make a pellet product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Okada (previously attached translation of JP 2010179545) discloses a masterbatch mixing system having a feeder which supplies pellets one-by-one (para. [0006]).
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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 at 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774