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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 90-91 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/28/26.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 72-79 and 82-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elvin et al. (U.S. 5,277,879), hereinafter referred to as Elvin.
As to claim 72 and 82-83, Elvin discloses a system for introducing one or more additives into materials (Abstract and Figures 102), the system comprising: an assembly of injectors (injectors 34, Figure 1), a manifold (manifold 40, Figure 1) for controlling flows of substances in said assembly of injectors; and valves (valves 42, Figures 1 and 2) incorporated into the manifold for each injector to independently control the flows of substances in the injector; and a supply (supply 32, Figure 1) of an additive.
Elvin fails to explicitly disclose the injectors comprise internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide injectors comprising internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be reducing the reaction and production times of the system.
As to claim 78, Elvin discloses the system further comprises a conduit (conduit 28, Figure 1; alternative, housing 12 forms a conduit, Figure 1) for containing the materials.
As to claims 73-77 and 79, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
As to claim 84, Elvin discloses the system wherein the assembly of injectors comprises 2 or more injectors (at least two injectors 34, Figures 1 and 2).
As to claim 85, Elvin discloses the system wherein the assembly of injectors comprises 7 or more injectors (seven or more injectors 34, column 7, line 26), which overlaps the claimed 16 or more injectors. Elvin further disclose that a large number of injector enables the system to remain operational. Furthermore, any additional injectors would have involved a mere duplication of parts with predictable results, which would be an obvious modification as per MPEP 2144.04–VI–B.
Claims 72-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDalsem et al. (U.S. 8,967,849), hereinafter referred to as VanDalsem.
As to claim 72 and 82-83, VanDalsem discloses a system for introducing one or more additives into materials (Abstract), the system comprising: an assembly of injectors (injectors 52, Figure 1), a manifold (digital control system, column 4, line 59) for controlling flows of substances in said assembly of injectors; and valves (valves 56, column 4, line 46) incorporated into the manifold for each injector to independently control the flows of substances in the injector; and a supply (inlet 74 or 76, Figure 3) of an additive.
VanDalsem fails to explicitly disclose the injectors comprise internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide injectors comprising internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be reducing the reaction and production times of the system.
As to claims 73-77 and 79, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
As to claim 78, VanDalsem discloses the system further comprises a conduit (barrel 104, Figure 7) for containing the materials.
As to claim 80, VanDalsem discloses the conduit comprises an extruder (barrel 104 is an extruder, Figure 7).
As to claim 81, VanDalsem discloses their barrel, or conduit, further comprises a discharge valve body (die assembly 112, Figure 7).
As to claim 84, VanDalsem discloses the system wherein the assembly of injectors comprises 2 or more injectors (more than two injectors 52, Figures 7-8).
As to claim 85, VanDalsem discloses the system but does not explicitly discloses the assembly of injectors comprises 16 or more injectors. However, any additional injectors would have involved a mere duplication of parts with predictable results, which would be an obvious modification as per MPEP 2144.04–VI–B.
As to claim 86, VanDalsem et al. (U.S. 8,967,849), discloses an extruder comprising: a barrel, wherein the barrel (barrel 104, Figure 7) comprises an inner chamber comprising a feeder zone (zone 102 comprising inlet 36, column 5, line 34 and Figure 7) and a reaction zone (zone 106, Figure 7), wherein the extruder is constructed and arranged such that a steam impervious plug is capable of being formed by compacting a biomass in a high pressure zone separating the feeder zone and the reaction zone (compacting by extruder screw 120 and 122, column 6, line 20 and Figure 8); a discharge valve body (die assembly 112, Figure 7) at a discharge end of the barrel, wherein the barrel further comprises a plurality of injection ports that penetrate an outer wall of the barrel (ports accommodating injectors 52, Figure 7), and wherein injectors (injectors 52, Figures 7-8) are placed into the plurality of injection ports, a manifold (digital control system, column 4, line 59) for controlling flows of substances in said injectors; and valves (valves 56, column 4, line 46) incorporated into the manifold for each injector to independently control the flows of substances in the injector; and a supply (inlet 74 or 76, Figure 3) of an additive.
VanDalsem fails to explicitly disclose the injectors comprise internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide injectors comprising internal bores of a diameter of about 2 mm, or ranging from 2 to 4 mm, since where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be reducing the reaction and production times of the system.
As to claim 87, VanDalsem discloses the extruder wherein the barrel comprises the plurality of injector injection ports organized in spiral or circular patterns about the barrel (ports are organized at nonrandom, regular, opposite positions about the periphery of the barrel, Figure 1 or Figure 10). Alternatively, selecting a spiral or circular pattern would have involved choosing from a finite number of patterns for the organization of injection ports, with a reasonable expectation of injection success, or selection of a pattern would have been a matter of obvious design change.
As to claim 88, VanDalsem discloses the extruder wherein the plurality of injectors are perpendicular to the barrel (see Figure 1).
As to claim 89, VanDalsem discloses the extruder wherein one or more of the injectors are predisposed. Regarding the composition and manner of material injection, a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Additionally, inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2114 and MPEP 2115.
Claim(s) 81 and 86-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanDalsem, or in the alternative, under VanDalsem in view of Johnson (U.S. 5,238,385 A), hereinafter referred to as Johnson.
As to claims 81 or 86-89, VanDalsem discloses their barrel, or conduit, further comprises a discharge valve body (die assembly 112, Figure 7).
However, should Applicant not be convinced that Vandelsem discloses a discharge valve body, Johnson discloses an extrusion die assembly comprising a discharge diversion valve (valve 28, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the discharge diversion valve into the discharge die assembly of VanDalsem in order to produced extruded products having different sizes and/or shapes through the use of multiple die plates from a single extruder, without interrupting the operation of the extruder, as disclosed in Johnson (abstract). Such a modification would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abbas Rashid whose telephone number is (571)270-7457. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights