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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to. It is suggested that “Hopper” be amended to “hopper” to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 15 is objected to. It is understood that “a hopper” “a first particulate material” “a mixing vessel” “a feed system” “a weighing system” “a control system” are the same elements in claim 1, from which claim 15 depends. It is suggested that the elements in claim 15 be referred to as “the hopper” “the first particulate material” “the mixing vessel” “the feed system” “the weighing system” “the control system” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since there is a period at limitation g) and then the claim goes on to list additional limitations. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 1 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if the “a mixing vessel” in part h) is the same mixing vessel previously recited in part a).
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the indefinite rejections above and therefore claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear how many vibrating feeders are required by the claim. The claim recites at least one, preferably at least two, preferably at least three, preferably at least four. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 3 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if a hopper, a first chute, and a hopper vibrator are referring to the hopper, chute and vibrator in claim 1, from which claim 3 depend.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the mixing vessel discharge valve” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the language includes “preferably each of the following equipment” and it is not clear what is required by the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since it is not clear if “preferably an enzyme” is required by the claim.
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, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McVane (U.S. Publication 2007/0125508).
Regarding claim 1, McVane teaches an apparatus for dissolving and/or suspending powders in liquids (figure 6) comprising: a) a mixing system (item 10) for dissolving or suspending substances located in a mixing vessel in a solvent (item 12 mixes substances in a solvent, water, the materials are considered intended use), b) solvent supply means to supply solvent to the mixing system (item 42 water supply line), c) a feeding system for feeding a particulate material to the weighing system (hopper 28 and item 32 screw conveyor feed powder to item 12), d) a weighing system for weighting powders (paragraph 102 and item 62 transducer weighs powder in item 12), e) a blending vessel to which material is transferred from the mixing system (accumulator tank item 110), f) optionally, a day tank to which a material may be transferred from the blending vessel for storage (limitation f) is an optional limitation and not considered required by the claim), and g) and a control system to control operation of at least part of the feed system (item 66 controller, see paragraph 203), wherein h) the mixing system is a recirculation system, comprising a mixing pump (item 74, is downstream of item 100) and a mixing vessel (item 12), and i) the feeding system comprises at least one vibrating feeder comprising a hopper (item 20), a first chute (item 40 channel proximate item 36) and a hopper vibrator (item 30).
Regarding claim 3, McVane teaches one vibrating feeder comprising a hopper (item 20) a first chute (item 40 channel proximate item 36) and a hopper vibrator (item 30).
Regarding claim 5, McVane teaches the control system comprises a programmable logic controller (paragraph 103 teaches a PLC) and a human machine interface (paragraph 217 teaches an interface with the controller which is considered reading on a human machine interface).
Regarding claim 6, McVane teaches wherein the control system is arranged to receive signals form the weighing system and to control operation of at least part of the feed system (paragraph 217 teaches the controller used to feed material, paragraph 102 teaches item 62 sends a suitable signal to controller 66).
Regarding claim 7, McVane teaches wherein the feed system is arranged to feed particulate material to the weighing system (item 32 conveys material into surface item 64), and to feed particulate material from the weighing system to the mixing vessel (material at item 64 is fed and mixed in item 12 after being weighed, see paragraph 102).
Regarding claim 8, McVane teaches wherein the feed system includes a first feeder arranged to feed particulate material from the hopper to the weighing system (material flows from item 28 towards item 62, the pressure transducer 62 senses the force and send signals to the controller, see paragraph 102) and the control system is arranged to control operation of the first feeder according to signals received from weighing system (paragraph 217 teaches using the controller to feed material).
Regarding claim 10, McVane teaches wherein the mixing vessel includes a first sensor, and the control system is arranged to actuate the mixing setup when the first sensor detects the presence of solvent in the mixing vessel (meter 50 senses water flow, paragraph 99 teaches using item 50 to control the quantity of water that enters the tank).
Regarding claim 11, McVane teaches wherein the control system is arranged to actuate the mixing setup prior to delivering particulate material to the mixing vessel (paragraph 99 teaches controlling the quantity of water that can be employed and therefore the controller is considered capable of actuating the mixing setup prior to material from item 28).
Regarding claim 12, McVane teaches including at least one blend vessel, which is connected in series with the mixing vessel discharge valve, and is arranged for diluting liquid produced in the mixing vessel (item 14 which is downstream of valve 106 and has a fresh water line for diluting liquid product).
Regarding claim 13, McVane teaches including a cleaning system arranged to clean at least one of the mixing vessel and blend vessel with solvent from the solvent supply system, wherein the control system is arranged to control operation of the cleaning system (paragraph 105 teaches a cleaning system including drain tap 76 and discharge line 68, paragraph 217 teaches the controller used to feed material).
Regarding claim 15, McVane teaches a method of making a liquid formulation comprising suspending or dissolving a powder in a liquid (paragraph 152 teaches a suspension of water and bond material, paragraph 157 teaches the bond material is powered bond material) which includes providing the first hopper (see figure 6 item 28); storing the first particulate material in the first hopper (see figure 6, particulate material is in item 28); providing a mixing vessel (item 12); supplying solvent to the mixing vessel (item 42 supplies water to item 12); providing a mixing setup for mixing through recirculation (see recycle line 100); actuation the mixing setup to mix substances in the mixing vessel (paragraph 152 controller turns on mix motor 56 to begin agitation); providing a feed stream (item 40 and 36 are considered providing a feeds stream) and a weighing system (item 62 is used to weight material in item 12); the feed system feeding first particulate material to the weighing system (item 30 and 36 feed material into item 12); the weighing system determining the mass of first particulate material fed thereto (paragraph 102, item 62 is used to measure the quantity of material in the tank); a control system receiving signals from the weighing system and controlling operation of at least part of the feed system (paragraph 102 controller 66 which), according to the signals received from the weighing system to control the mass of first particulate material fed to the weighing system (paragraph 33 the controller controls the pre-mix system and adjust the feed rate of the bond material); and feeding the first particulate material from the weighing system to the mixing vessel (material weight by item 62 can be fed into item 12 via recycle line 100, see paragraph 191).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McVane (U.S. Publication 2007/0125508).
Regarding claim 9, McVane teaches one feeder system (hopper 28 and item 32 screw conveyor feed powder to item 12). Regarding claim 9, McVane is silent to a second feeder system. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of feeder systems in order to mix a variety of materials since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McVane (U.S. Publication 2007/0125508) in further view of Gaultney (U.S. Publication 2013/0286767).
Regarding claim 2, McVane is silent to wherein the solvent supply means comprises a supply tank and a pump. Regarding claim 2, Gaultney is silent to wherein the solvent supply means (Figure 1, T1, P1, V1 and L1 are considered reading on a supply line) comprises a supply tank (item T1) and a pump (P1). Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the mixing system of McVane with the tank and pump configuration of Gaultney in order to allow for local storage and transport of fluid into the mixing vessel.
Regarding claim 14, McVane is silent to the main frame to support the equipment. Regarding claim 14, Gaultney teaches a main frame (figure 2 item 18) which supports a hopper (item 38) a mixing vessel (item 26). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixing system of McVane with the frame of Gaultney in order to secure the mixing system with a rigid structure (see Gaultney paragraph 31).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McVane (U.S. Publication 2007/0125508) in further view of Christy (U.S. Publication 2013/0258799).
Regarding claim 4, McVane teaches a weighing tray (item 64 is considered reading on a weighing tray), a weighing tray loadcell (item 62 which his placed underneath item 64). Regarding claim 4, McVane is silent to the weighing tray vibrator. Regarding claim 4, Christy teaches a weighing tray (interior surface of item 18) a weighing tray loadcell (items 33 and 34), and a weighing tray vibrator (item 21 vibrating system with motor 23, paragraph 21). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing system of McVane with the weighing system of Christy in order to better control the amount of powder being fed into the mixing vessel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Walter Griffin can be reached at (571)272-1447. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774