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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “plural molding machines” in line 1. It is not clear if this is the same as the molding machine recited in claim 1. Further, the claim indicates that the molding machines receive materials from the material supply units. It is not clear if these materials are received directly from the supply units or are received from the manifold (specifically, claim 20 states the molding machines are connected to maifolds). It would appear that the molding machines of claim 11 receive mixed materials from the manifold, and thus the claim should be amended to clarify this.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moller (US 5110521, hereinafter Moller).
Regarding claim 1, Moller discloses a system for delivering plural materials to a molding machine according to a defined formulation (intended use, see MPEP 2111.02), the system comprising:
a manifold (figure 1, hopper 10) defining a mixing chamber;
plural material supply units (supplies 16 and 18) coupled with the manifold, each one of the plural material supply units configured to contain materials, each one of which differs from others in the plural material supply units, the plural material supply units including at least a first material supply unit containing a first material and a second material supply unit containing a second material (“virgin supply,” “regrind supply”);
a first conduit (between supply 16 and hopper 10) coupling the first material supply unit with the manifold;
a second conduit (between supply 18 and hopper 10) coupling the second material supply unit with the manifold;
a first valve (valve 20) configured to alternatively open and close the mixing chamber to the first conduit;
a second valve (valve 22) configured to alternatively open and close the mixing chamber to the second conduit; and
a controller (controller 36) configured to operate the first valve and the second valve to admit at least one of the first material and the second material into the mixing chamber according to the defined formulation.
Regarding claim 2, Moller discloses wherein the mixing chamber includes a section that is tapered (figure 1, lower section of hopper 10) and is configured to mix the first material with the second material (the tapered chamber of Moller would provide at least some mixing).
Regarding claim 6, Moller discloses the manifold includes; a first section (figure 1, upper portion of hopper 10), with the first conduit and the second conduit coupled to the manifold at the first section (see figure 1); and a second section disposed below the first section (lower portion of hopper 10), the second section shaped with a taper configured to mix the first material with the second material (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Moller discloses the manifold includes plural inlets corresponding to the plural supply units (figure 1, two inlets can be seen) and an outlet that is a sole outlet of the manifold (figure 1, only one outlet can be seen).
Regarding claim 11, Moller discloses a system for delivering plural materials to a molding machine according to a defined formulation (intended use, see MPEP 2111.02), the system comprising:
a manifold (figure 1, hopper 10) defining a mixing chamber;
plural material supply units (supplies 16 and 18) coupled with the manifold, each one of the plural material supply units configured to contain materials, each one of which differs from others in the plural material supply units, the plural material supply units including at least a first material supply unit containing a first material and a second material supply unit containing a second material (“virgin supply,” “regrind supply”);
a first conduit (between supply 16 and hopper 10) coupling the first material supply unit with the manifold;
a second conduit (between supply 18 and hopper 10) coupling the second material supply unit with the manifold;
a first valve (valve 20) configured to alternatively open and close the mixing chamber to the first conduit;
a second valve (valve 22) configured to alternatively open and close the mixing chamber to the second conduit;
a first actuator coupled with the first valve (column 3, lines 26-30, “air actuator 52”);
a second actuator coupled with the second valve (column 3, lines 26-30, “air actuator 52”); and
a controller (controller 36) configured to operate the first valve and the second valve to admit at least one of the first material and the second material into the mixing chamber according to the defined formulation.
Regarding claim 12, Moller discloses wherein the mixing chamber includes a section that is tapered (figure 1, lower section of hopper 10) and is configured to mix the first material with the second material (the tapered chamber of Moller would provide at least some mixing).
Regarding claim 16, Moller discloses the manifold includes; a first section that has a cuboid shape (figure 1, upper portion of hopper 10), with the first conduit and the second conduit coupled to the manifold at the first section (see figure 1); and a second section disposed below the first section (lower portion of hopper 10), the second section shaped with a taper configured to mix the first material with the second material (see figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller (US 5110521, hereinafter Moller) in view of Fordyce et al. (US PGPub 2015/0157995, hereinafter Fordyce).
Regarding claim 3, Moller discloses a vent opening (figure 1, opening seen between valves), but is silent to a valve as recited. Fordyce teaches a mixing device having a vent opening with a valve configured to open and close the vent opening (paragraph 0023). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with the vent valve of Fordyce for the purpose of allowing the vent to be opened and closed as needed. It is noted that Moller teaches a venting system that is controllable by a vacuum pump, and so controlling a venting system is already contemplated by Moller.
Regarding claim 13, Moller discloses a vent opening (figure 1, opening seen between valves), but is silent to a valve as recited. Fordyce teaches a mixing device having a vent opening with a valve configured to open and close the vent opening (paragraph 0023). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with the vent valve of Fordyce for the purpose of allowing the vent to be opened and closed as needed. It is noted that Moller teaches a venting system that is controllable by a vacuum pump, and so controlling a venting system is already contemplated by Moller.
Claims 5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller (US 5110521, hereinafter Moller) in view of Larwick et al. (US 5344619, hereinafter Larwick).
Regarding claim 5, Moller is silent to a vacuum system as recited. Larwick teaches a mixing apparatus (figure 1) having a mixing chamber (chamber 10) and a vacuum system (eductor 14) coupled with the outlet of the mixing chamber (at item 13) that is configured to draw materials through the outlet (eductor 14 creates a negative pressure to draw material though conduit 13). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with a vacuum system for the purpose of facilitating movement of the material through the system as it is mixed.
Regarding claim 15, Moller is silent to a vacuum system as recited. Larwick teaches a mixing apparatus (figure 1) having a mixing chamber (chamber 10) and a vacuum system (eductor 14) coupled with the outlet of the mixing chamber (at item 13) that is configured to draw materials through the outlet (eductor 14 creates a negative pressure to draw material though conduit 13). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with a vacuum system for the purpose of facilitating movement of the material through the system as it is mixed.
Regarding claim 19, Moller discloses the manifold includes; a first section (figure 1, upper portion of hopper 10), with the first conduit and the second conduit coupled to the manifold at the first section (see figure 1); and a second section disposed below the first section (lower portion of hopper 10), the second section shaped with a taper configured to mix the first material with the second material (see figure 1), but is silent to a vacuum system as recited. Larwick teaches a mixing apparatus (figure 1) having a mixing chamber (chamber 10) and a vacuum system (eductor 14) coupled with the outlet of the mixing chamber (at item 13) that is configured to draw materials through the outlet (eductor 14 creates a negative pressure to draw material though conduit 13). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with a vacuum system for the purpose of facilitating movement of the material through the system as it is mixed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller (US 5110521, hereinafter Moller) in view of Fortunato et al. (US PGPub 2018/0072555, hereinafter Fortunato).
Regarding claim 8, Moller is silent to a tag as recited. Fortunato teaches a mixing machine that includes a tag and a reader configured to supply the formulation from the tag to the controller (paragraph 0069). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Moller with the reader of Fortunato for the purpose of preparing a desired mixture based on a recipe. It is noted that the tag of Fortunato could be placed anywhere, including at the molding machine as recited.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moller (US 5110521, hereinafter Moller).
Regarding claim 20, Moller discloses a system for delivering plural materials to plural molding machines according to defined formulations (intended use, see MPEP 2111.02), the system comprising:
a formulating system including a number of manifolds (figure 1, hopper 10), each defining a mixing chamber, wherein each one of the plural molding machines is coupled with a unique one of the number of manifolds;
a set of material supply units (supplies 16 and 18) coupled with each manifold in the number of manifolds, each material supply unit in the set of material supply units configured to contain a material which differs from other materials in other material supply units in the set material supply units (“virgin supply,” “regrind supply”);
a conduit network (between supplies 16 and 18 and hopper 10) coupling all of the material supply units in the set of material supply units with all of the manifolds in the number of manifolds;
a plural number of valves (valves 20 and 22) configured to control communication of the materials between the set of material supply units and the number of manifolds; and
a controller (controller 36) configured to operate a set of actuators to open and close the plural number of valves to selectively admit the materials into the mixing chambers according to the defined formulations.
While Moller does not explicitly teach a molding machine, the molding machine is not positively claimed in the claim. The device of Moller would be fully capable of attaching to a molding machine or plural molding machines, meeting the claim. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of manifolds for the purpose of increasing output by allowing multiple mixtures to be prepared simultaneously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 18 are 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.
Claims 4 and 14 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite a controller configuration not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claims 7 and 17 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter because they recite configurations of the valves not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record.
Claim 10 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it positively recites molding machines receiving materials from supply units not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 18 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter because it recites a tag on a die not reasonably disclosed, taught, or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses mixing machines with controlled feed valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached 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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774