NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION after RCE
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
Specification
The abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4 SEP 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The cumulative replacement sheets of drawings are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 15, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the patent to ROBERTS (US 2872166) published FEB 3, 1959.
In view of a revised search mandated by the RCE, the newly cited patent to ROBERTS ‘166 discloses a mobile mixing apparatus comprising a frame 12; a mixing chamber assembly coupled to the frame and including a housing 14 with a top end and a bottom end; wherein the mixing chamber assembly comprises a common mixing chamber within 14 with a divider 20 or 22 separating the common mixing chamber into at least two separate mixing chambers 24, 26, 28; the separate mixing chambers each including at least one respective mixing mechanism 42 disposed therein to mix substances with a liquid from liquid tank 82; each separate mixing chamber further including a discharge opening 46 to allow a mixture to leave the each separate mixing chamber; a motor 60 coupled to the mixing mechanisms, to drive the mixing mechanisms; a storage bin 52 coupled to the frame and disposed proximate to the bottom end of the mixing chamber assembly to receive the mixture; and a transport mechanism A, 10 coupled to the frame to transport the mixing chamber assembly and the storage bin;
wherein the mixing mechanisms include a rotating shaft 38 that extends from a front of each separate mixing chamber to a back of each separate mixing chamber;
wherein the mixing mechanisms further include arms 40 disposed along a length of the rotating shaft 38, with paddles 42 disposed on ends of the arms, respectively;
wherein a single rotating shaft 38 extends through both the first and second separate mixing chambers 24, 26, 28;
wherein the motor is one of a hydraulic motor, an electric motor, pneumatic motor, gasoline motor 60, and propane motor (col. 2, lines 59-63);
wherein the storage bin is tapered (the horizontal width of the bin 52 narrows toward the discharge opening proximate 58) to funnel the mixture to a second discharge opening (proximate 58) proximate to the bottom of the storage bin 52;
wherein the transport mechanism 10 includes one of wheels 66 and a continuous track;
a liquid storage tank 82 to store the liquid and be transported by the transport mechanism 10;
a front side 16 and a back side 18, the liquid storage tank 82 being disposed on the front side 16 (Figures 1-2);
at least one hinged door 32 providing access to the mixing mechanisms disposed within the mixing chamber assembly (col. 2, lines 18-24);
a mixture pump at 94, 96;
spray nozzles (proximate 98, note the liquid storage tank 82 providing a liquid spray pattern below 98 in chamber 24 in Figure 2) wherein such a spray nozzle may be provided in each chamber 24, 26, 28 with the spray nozzle in each chamber being fed via a separate liquid tank 82 associated with each spray nozzle and each chamber or a single liquid tank 82 feeding each nozzle in each chamber (col. 4, lines 5-11);
and at least one access panel 32 disposed at the top of the mixing chamber, the at least one access panel capable of providing materials directly into the separate mixing chambers 24, 26, 28.
With regard to claim 2, the materials being processed are not germane to the patentability of the mixing apparatus - MPEP 2115: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Accordingly, the “Bentonite” and “water” materials processed in the mixer as set forth in claim 2 do not limit or provide any structural limitations to the recited mixing apparatus itself.
More specifically, the patent to ROBERTS discloses a truck that is indicated by the letter A, and this may be the type of truck shown or any other suitable type of truck. As shown in Figure 1, the truck cab is indicated at 10, and it will be further understood that the truck is powered by a suitable motor usually located forward of the cab, not shown.
Extending longitudinally of the truck is a pair of I beams 12 for mounting the tank or body 14. As seen in Figure 2, the tank is provided with a front end 16 and a rear end 18. Spaced from and parallel to these ends are transverse partitions 20 and 22 forming in the structure shown compartments 24, 26 and 28. Each compartment is provided with an opening 30 and a cover 32 which is pivoted at 34, hinged- ly connecting each cover to the body of the tank. These openings are of such size that a man may descend through any one of them into one of the compartments for the purpose of cleaning the same, or repairing the moving parts therein.
The ends 16 and 18 and partitions 20 and 22 are provided with hearings 36 for the reception of a rotary shaft 38. Mounted on the shaft are a plurality of arms 40 in each compartment, and these arms -support a primary screw or worm section 42. The shape of the tank is such as compared with the height and width of the worm that the worm scrapes against the bottom or floor 44 of the tank. These individual worms therefore, when rotated in one direction, move and mix the material from a space adjacent-the forward end of the compartment to the rear end of the compartment, and when rotated in the opposite direction, the material is of course-fed in the opposite direction. This latter operation is resorted to in order to mix more thoroughly the several ingredients of which the mixture is comprised. .
Located adjacent the rear of each compartment and in the bottom thereof is an outlet aperture 46. This opening can be closed by a valve, shown in Figure 5 as a slide valve 48 having a handle 50 for operating the same.
When the valve is opened, and assuming the material is being moved by the worm toward the opening 46 of each compartment, the material falls through the opening into the passageway 52 located preferably medially beneath the tank 14. As seen particularly in Figure 2, the passageway 52 extends from one end to the other of the tank, and the interior cylindrical sides thereof are engaged by the rotating secondary worm 54 having a shaft 56. The exit or rear end of the passageway is provided with a conduit 58 which may be a flexible boot, or a hose like conduit that may be swung so as to deliver the contents of the passageway 52 into a tank or bin forming part of the barn of one of the farmer users of the mixed feed.
The shaft 38 which mounts the primer worms is preferably driven by an internal combustion engine 60, said engine having control means 62 and including a combined clutch and reverse driving mechanism indicated in Figures 1 and 2 by the numeral 64.
As shown in Figure 2, a fan 94 is driven by a motor 659 for forcing the contents through conduit 58. The truck A is provided with the usual rear wheels 66, axle 68, differential mechanism 70, and drive shaft 72. This drive shaft is connected to be driven from the truck of the engine. The secondary worm shaft 56 is provided with a driven sprocket wheel 74 which is rigidly fixed thereto, that is, driven by means of the driving sprocket 76 which latter is splined to the shaft 38. The two sprockets are drivingly connected to each other by a chain 78. It will be appreciated that the primary worm 42 and the secondary worm 54 are both driven by the transmission 64 and the control means 62 thereof, or the rotation of these worms may be reversed so as to more thoroughly stir the feeds in the several bins 24, 26 and 28. It will be noted that a space 80 has been provided above the primary worms 42. This is for the purpose of accommodating the fluffing of the materials as they are agitated within the bins.
The separate mixing compartments 24, 26 and 28 each contain a plurality of different materials such as feed materials, and the purpose of providing separate compartments is to provide for the simultaneous mixing of different feeds in each compartment or different proportions of the same feeds in the several compartments.
Liquid may be retained in a supplementary liquid tank 82 having a thermostat 84 for controlling the temperature of the contents thereof, and a heater 86. Both the thermostat and heater may be supplied by current from the battery (not shown) of the truck through wiring 88, as shown in Figure 2. The supplementary tank 82 is provided with an outlet pipe 90 having a valve 92 for controlling the amount of liquid that is led into the compartment 24. The manhole cover 32 is lifted for operation of the valve 92. The numeral 94 indicates a main bearing for shaft 72. It will be understood that a supplementary tank 82, with its heater, thermostat and outlet, may be provided for each of the compartments 26 and 28, not shown, or a single supplementary tank with heater, thermostat, outlet and inlet may readily be substituted for that shown, with an outlet means that is led into each of the compartments.
Additionally, it is possible to provide in the same truck a plurality of different mixes. These mixes may again be mixed by opening the foremost valve 48 and the rearmost valve 48 to the compartments 24 and 28 so as to mix the contents of these two compartments by the worm 54 as will be readily appreciated. It is contemplated that any number of compartments may be provided so that, if desired, the purchaser may obtain a certain proportion of one or more of the contents of each of the compartments, each containing a separate mix.
It will be understood that this invention includes a construction, not shown, where the applicant may use an off-shaft drive from shaft 72 with a suitable clutch and transmission reversing mechanism interposed between the said shaft 72 which forms the drive shaft and the shaft 38 that forms the driven shaft for driving the primary agitators and the secondary agitator.
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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBERTS in view of DEGARAY et al. (US 2018/0347214 A1).
ROBERTS does not disclose the liquid pump. DEGARAY et al. discloses a similar mixing apparatus, comprising a frame 10; a mixing chamber 49, 49a, or 100 coupled to the frame; mixing mechanisms 52 or 110 disposed within the mixing chamber and further including a discharge opening to allow a mixture to leave the mixing chamber; a motor, coupled to the mixing mechanism, to drive the mixing mechanism ¶ 0046], [0049]; a storage bin 51, coupled to the frame and disposed proximate to the bottom end of the mixing chamber 49 or 100, to receive the mixture; a transport mechanism 5, coupled to the frame, to transport the mixing chamber and the storage bin; the mixing mechanism being divided paddle mixers 52, 55, or 110 - Figure 14; wherein the motor is a hydraulic motor [0046], [0049]; wherein the discharge opening is a first discharge opening, the storage bin 51 being tapered proximate 69.1 to funnel the mixture a second discharge opening (above 49.3 in Figure 9) of the storage bin 51; wherein the transport mechanism includes one of wheels (Figure 2); a liquid storage tank 70 coupled to the frame; the liquid storage tank 70 being disposed on a front side of the mixing apparatus - Figures 10, 12; a liquid pump 72 coupled to the frame to pump the liquid from the liquid storage tank 70 to the mixing chamber 49 or 100 - Figures 13 and 14; hinged doors 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 coupled to the housing; and a mixture pump 69.1 to pump the mixture away from the mixing apparatus via discharge hose 66.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided ROBERTS with a liquid pump as clearly disclosed by DEGARAY et al. for the purpose of enabling pumping the liquid from the storage tank in ROBERTS via the liquid pump to the mixer(s) to blend with the dry ingredients.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBERTS in view of DeWIND (US 2014/0064860 A1).
ROBERTS does not disclose the excavator/trencher. De Wind ‘860 discloses an excavator/trencher that dispenses a liquid/solids slurry mixture formed via a mixing delivery device 16 proximate the trenching device 212 for placement into the formed trench.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the mixing apparatus of ROBERTS with an excavator/trencher as disclosed by De WIND for the purpose of enabling the formation of an underground slurry wall with a single pass across the landscape receiving the wall per ¶ [0007].
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROBERTS in view of STRONG (US 3188059).
ROBERTS discloses the paddles 42 disposed on the drive shaft 38 set into rotation via a motor 60 driven chain drive 78 but not the belt drive and, assuming arguendo, ROBERTS does not adequately show the recited dispensing nozzles, the patent to STRONG discloses a mixing mechanism 1 for building materials that includes first and second rotating shafts 12, 13 that extends from a front of the mixing chamber 2 to a back of the mixing chamber 2; wherein the mixing mechanism 1 further includes arms 10, 11 disposed along a length of the rotating shaft 12, 13, with paddles 14, 15 disposed on ends of the arms 10, 11; wherein the drive motor 70 is coupled to the mixing mechanism via a belt 72; and a plurality of spray nozzles 26, 28, 30 disposed within the mixing chamber.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the mixer in ROBERTS with a belt drive and spray nozzles as disclosed by STRONG for the purpose of enabling the spraying of a liquid onto the materials to be mixed in the mixing chambers and to drive the mixing mechanisms via an art recognized manner of transmitting driving power from a drive motor to the mixing mechanisms, i.e., via a belt instead of a chain.
With regard to the above rejection, the substitution of one type of drive motor transmission for another in the prior mixing art [in this instance, substituting a belt drive transmission for the chain drive transmission seen in ROBERTS] is premised upon a simple and obvious substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (the driving of the mixing mechanisms within the mixing chambers with a desired type of transmission between the drive motor and mixing mechanisms that is selected from a finite list of transmissions) per KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) and see MPEP 2143(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
No claims filed with the RCE stand allowed.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment and the revised search fields.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. PENCE discloses the subject matter of claim 8, namely a storage bin 36 that is tapered to funnel the mixture discharged from mixing chambers 4 and 16 disposed above the storage bin 36 to a discharge opening (above 32) proximate to the bottom of the storage bin 36.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 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, Ms. CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
23 FEB 2026