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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, line 5, “the first lateral side” should be changed to -- a first lateral side--.
As to claim 6, line 4, “the vertical orientation” should be changed to -- a vertical orientation--.
As to claim 8, line 4, “a vertical orientation” should be changed to --the vertical orientation--.
As to claim 12, line 2, “the actuation” should be changed to --actuation--; and line 3, “the release” should be changed to --release--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rother (FR 1,479,019) in view of Perez et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0178473).
Regarding claim 1, Rother discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1) for compressing materials and extracting fluids therefrom, comprising:
a frame 1 comprises an open front aspect (Fig. 1);
[a] first lateral side (Fig. 1, illustrated below) of the frame;
the frame further comprises a first linear guide (Fig. 1, illustrated below) interconnected to a first lateral aspect of the frame, and a second linear guide interconnected to a second lateral aspect of the frame (Fig. 1, illustrated below), wherein the linear guides are longitudinally oriented between a first end of the frame and a second end of the frame (Fig. 1, illustrated below);
a first platen 6 and a second platen 6, the platens each comprise a first lateral aspect (left side of platens) slidably interconnected to the first linear guide, and the platens each further comprise a second lateral aspect (right side of platens) slidably interconnected to the second linear guide, wherein the platens are configured to slide along the linear guides;
the platens each comprise a first surface (top surface of platens) oriented toward the first end of the frame, and a second surface (bottom surface of platens) oriented toward the second end of the frame, wherein the second surface of the first platen and the first surface of the second platen are configured to compress a material placed therebetween;
the platens each further comprise a heating element (pg. 3, line 2) adapted for heating each platen to a desired temperature;
a first spring 8 (pg. 3, lines 15-16; “spring force”) positioned between the first lateral aspect of the first platen and the first lateral aspect of the second platen, and a second spring 8 (pg. 3, lines 15-16; “spring force”) positioned between the second lateral aspect of the first platen and the second lateral aspect of the second platen, the first spring and the second spring are each configured to apply an expanding force between the first platen and the second platen, wherein the first spring translates from a first position to a second position along the longitudinal axis of the frame toward the first end of the frame during compression (pg. 3, lines 1-14);
a first linear actuator 3 interconnected to the frame configured to translate longitudinally within the frame and translate the platens toward the first end of the frame, and compress the second platen toward the first platen; and
a stationary structure 5 (Fig. 1) interconnected within the frame, configured to arrest the translation of the first platen toward the first end of the frame.
Rother does not expressly disclose a stand.
Perez teaches a stand 120 (Figs. 4A-4D) pivotally connected to a frame 138a for the purpose of moving the press between a vertical and horizontal orientation (abstract). After modification, the frame/first lateral side would be pivotally interconnected with the stand and the frame would rotate in relation to the stand about the pivotal interconnection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of Rother and include the stand, as taught by Perez, for the purpose of moving the press between a vertical and horizontal orientation (abstract).
[AltContent: textbox (second end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first lateral aspect)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second lateral aspect)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second linear guide)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (second lateral side)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first lateral side)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (first linear guide)]
PNG
media_image1.png
560
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Rother discloses wherein a first end of the first linear actuator (top of 3) is configured to apply a force to the second surface of the second platen (3 applies a force toward the first end which applies force to the bottom surface of 6) in the direction of the first end of the frame; and a second end of the first linear actuator (bottom of 3) is interconnected to the frame (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Rother discloses wherein the first end of the first linear actuator comprises a top plate 4 adapted for distributing the applied force equally over the surface area of the second surface of the second platen (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Perez teaches wherein the pivotal interconnection (Figs. 4A-D) is offset toward the second end of the frame, wherein the first end of the frame extends horizontally outward in a first horizontal direction away from the pivotal interconnection when the frame is rotated away from the vertical orientation (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 7, Perez teaches wherein the frame is configured to pivotally rotate between a between a vertical orientation and a horizontal orientation (Figs. 4D and 5A).
Regarding claim 8, Rother/Perez disclose the claimed invention but is silent on a collection plate. In a separate embodiment, Perez teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a collection plate 22 (Fig. 2B), wherein the collection plate extends outward in [a] first direction (Fig. 2B), and wherein the collection plate is configured to lie vertically below the platens when the frame is moved away from a vertical orientation (Fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Rother/Perez and include the collection plate as taught in figure 2B, for the purpose of collect extract (para. 23).
Regarding claim 10, Rother/Perez disclose a first collection plate but is silent on a second collection plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a second collection plate, since it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, Perez teaches a brake 78 (Fig. 4D) interconnected between the stand and the frame, wherein the brake is configured to restrict the rotation of the frame in relation to the stand (para. 39).
Regarding claim 12, Perez teaches further comprising a brake release interconnected with the brake, wherein the actuation of the brake release results in allowing the rotation of the frame in relation to the stand about the pivotal interconnection, and wherein the release of the brake release results in restricting the rotation of the frame in relation to the stand (para. 39, spring or handle to plunger).
Regarding claim 17, Perez teaches wherein the platens each further comprise a temperature sensing device (Perez: para. 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Rother/Perez and include a temperature sensing device, as taught by Perez, for the purpose of determining the temperature of the platen (para. 43).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rother (FR 1,479,019) in view of Perez et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0178473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britton (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0299989).
As to claims 2 and 3, Rother/Perez discloses the claimed invention but is silent on the stationary structure being compressible. Britton teaches a stationary structure/compressible bushing 3 being compressible (Fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus and include make the stationary structure compressible, as taught by Britton, for the purpose of allowing less force to be applied (para. 37).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rother (FR 1,479,019) in view of Perez et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0178473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 20313769 (translation attached in previous office action). Rother/Perez discloses the claimed invention but is silent on a rotational assist device. DE 20313769 teaches a rotational assist device 12. After modification the rotational assist device would be interconnected between the stand and the frame, and the rotational assist device is adapted to provide counterbalancing support for rotating the frame about the pivotal interconnection (para. 44); (claim 14) wherein the rotational assist device comprises a second linear actuator 12; and (claim 15) wherein the second linear actuator comprises a gas strut 12 (paras. 36 and 44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Rother/Perez and include the rotational assist device interconnected between the stand and frame, as taught by DE 20313769, for the purpose of assisting in pivoting (para. 44).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rother (FR 1,479,019) in view of Perez et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0178473) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Britton (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0263079) (hereinafter Britton 2).
As to claim 16, Rother/Perez discloses the claimed invention but is silent on a first insulator plate interconnected to the first surface of the first platen; and the stationary structure comprising a second insulator plate. Britton 2 teaches a first insulator plate 41 interconnected to the first surface of the first platen 13; and the stationary structure 9 comprises a second insulator plate 34 (Fig. 17), wherein the first insulator plate is configured to abut the second insulator plate when the platens are translated toward the first end of the frame, and wherein the insulator plates are adapted for mitigating transfer of heat energy between the first platen and the frame. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Rother/Perez and include the first and second insulator plates, as taught by Britton 2, for the purpose of low thermal conductivity (para. 98).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP H0724597, Dawes, and Baldwin teach a multi platen press. Whitlow, Hanel, and Coate teach springs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON whose telephone number is (571)270-1477. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm Monday - Friday.
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, TC 3700 Director Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2975. 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.
CHRISTOPHER L. TEMPLETON
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725