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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (US 3645659 A) in view of Ragaert (WO2011/092269 A2) and Leukert (DE102005016362A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schott discloses a charging system for feeding granular processing material to at least one vertically oriented extruder screw (see figure 1), the charging system comprising: a hopper (26) configured to conduct the granular processing material along a feed direction to the extruder screw, the hopper including a filling zone (hopper can be filled); a comminution tool stationarily arranged in and connected to the hopper (grooves 57), the comminution tool including at least one comminution edge configured to comminute the granular processing material entering the hopper as the extruder screw rotates and the granular processing material is crushed, by action of the rotating extruder screw, between the comminution edge and the extruder screw (column 3 lines 16-26); a material reservoir for gravity-driven feeding of the processing material to the hopper (column 2 lines 71+).
Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Although Schott does not disclose including a slide and a ramming surface, the feeding device being configured to be driven through a feed zone such that the slide and the ramming surface combine comminuted and recirculated processing material with non-comminuted granular processing material for conveyance in the feed direction, analogous art, Ragaert, depicts slide and a ramming surface (24) the feeding device being configured to be driven through a feed zone as depicted in figures 2 and 25. As for surface combine comminuted and recirculated processing material with non-comminuted granular processing material for conveyance in the feed direction, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated slide and a ramming surface the feeding device being configured to be driven through a feed zone as taught by Ragaert into the system taught by Schott for the benefit of moving the granulate or powder (pg. 16 lines 26-29).
As for the claim limitation, projecting radially inward from the hopper into a portion of the filling zone to form, between the extruder screw and edge of the comminution tool a reduced space, radially is based on orientation and can change based on direction. As for reduced space, the term is broad and the spacing between the grooves (57) in Schott depicts a reduced space.
Further, analogous mixing art Leukert, depicts in figure 1 projecting radially inward from the hopper into a portion of the filling zone to form, between the extruder screw and edge of the comminution tool a reduced space (space between hopper and blades of the comminution tool). Further figures 3-6 depict different blade arrangement points to to different reduced spaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated projecting radially inward from the hopper into a portion of the filling zone to form, between the extruder screw and edge of the comminution tool a reduced space in order to ensure the pellets are fully broken down.
Regarding claim 8, Ragaert teaches the feeding device includes a longitudinally shiftable slide (24 in figure 2) that is configured to convey the processing material toward the extruder screw.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Ragaert teaches wherein the slide has an L-shaped cross section (see figure 19 g); wherein the slide (figure 19 g) has a ramming portion (left end) configured to convey the processing material toward the extruder screw wherein the ramming portion defines an indentation on a front side that faces the extruder screw (see figure 19 g and figure 2 and 25).
Regarding claim 11, Ragaert teaches wherein the slide has two side walls defining a space therebetween and each of the side walls extends transversely to an adjustment direction along which the slide is longitudinally shiftable (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
617
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, Ragaert depicts an inclined surface at a ramming portion therof, the inclined surface (24 in figure 21) being arranged to merge into the ramming surface and being configured to recirculate the processing material in the direction of the extruder screw (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities).
Regarding claim 24, as for wherein the slide includes a substantially cube-shaped ramming portion, such that the ramming surface extends substantially perpendicularly to an adjustment direction of the slide and over a majority of a total height of slide, MPEP 214405 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the slide to be cube-shaped since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 25, Ragaert depicts the indentation has a shape corresponding to a negative of a diameter of the extruder screw (figure 19 depicts different shapes) which can correspond to the extruder screw. The extruder screw is rotatable (pg. 22 lines 23-32). Further, MPEP 214405 states It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art indentation to have a shape corresponding to a negative of a diameter of the extruder screw since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schott (US 3645659 A) in view of Ragaert (WO2011/092269 A2) and Leukert (DE102005016362A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Koch (US4117073 A)
Regarding claim 6, Schott does not explicitly disclose the comminution tool includes a coneshaped reducing body. However, analogous extruder art, Koch teaches the comminution tool includes a cone-shaped reducing body (17) defining the least one comminution edge on a wall of the comminution tool wherein the comminution edge extends along a longitudinal hopper axis (see figure 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a coneshaped reducing body since MPEP2144.05 It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. A mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Schott (US 3645659 A) in view of Ragaert (WO2011/092269 A2) and Leukert (DE102005016362A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Steinhoff, Jr et al (US2017/0239718 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Schott and Ragaert do not explicitly disclose wherein the feeding device includes at least one solenoid coil. However, analogous hopper art, Steinhoff discloses “the powder hopper 16 may also comprise a nozzle, or plurality of nozzles, through which powder is selectively supplied. The nozzle or plurality of nozzles can supply powder using solenoids, actuators, or a combination thereof. In one preferred embodiment, the nozzle, or plurality of nozzles, supply powder to a powder deposition device 18 positioned below the nozzle, or plurality of nozzles” [0015]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated solenoid coil as taught by Steinhoff into feeding device taught by Ragaert for the benefit of ensuring material is moved from one container to another. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Schott’s grove are station features and do not project radially inward. However, radial is directional and with respect to a reference point.
Further, reduced space is broad and the grooves of Ragaert read upon it. Further, the combination of the newly cited art, Leukert, read on the new amendment.
Applicant is further reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights