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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 20 June 2023. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 1-14 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 “[a] system for analyzing a large number of material systems in amounts in a range from 0.001 to 1kg. . . .” It is not clear from the claim as written what the claimed mass range refers to. As written, one cannot determine if the mass range claimed refers to the claimed ‘large number of material systems’ or the system itself. Furthermore, in the event that the claimed range was meant to refer to the ‘large number of material systems,’ one is not properly apprised of the meaning of the mass range. Is it the total mass of the input material? The total material output? A single component of either, such as desired product? As claimed, the system could be directed to either a batch, semi-batch or continuous process. In that event, the claim is even less clear as now there is a missing time component to the mass range claimed.
The term “large number of material systems” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large number of material systems” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claims and specification as written does not provide the ordinary artisan with sufficient guidance of the effect of this limitation on the claimed apparatus.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the viscous medium" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one feeding device for feeding starting materials into the processing unit, the feeding device being established such that the amount of the starting material or the starting material can be varied.” It is not clear what applicant means by the phrase “the starting material or the starting material.” For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that applicant’s intent was to claim “an amount or a composition of the starting materials may be varied.”
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the dosing unit" in line 1 spanning to line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claimed dosing unit is not established in claim 5 or claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Rather, the dosing unit is established in claim 4, which is unrelated to claim 5.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation "the degassing vessel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claimed dosing unit is not established in claim 5 or claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. Rather, the dosing unit is established in claim 4, which is unrelated to claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,555,384 to Morris et al. (‘384 hereafter), made of record per applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, ‘384 teaches system for analyzing a large number of material systems in amounts in a range from 0.001 to 1 kg by which a product is achieved which has a viscosity of more than 10^1 mPas or which is solid at ambient conditions, the system comprising a processing unit for processing the viscous medium (Fig 1 item 1) and at least one feeding device for feeding starting materials into the processing unit, the feeding device being established such that the amount of the starting material or the starting material can be varied (Fig 1 item 4), and the processing unit further comprises an outlet which is connected to a device for producing pellets or test specimens if the product is solid at ambient conditions or to a dosing pump for transferring the product into a collecting vessel if the product is highly viscous at ambient conditions (Fig 1 item 34, C12L50).
Regarding claim 2, ‘384 teaches the system wherein a separation unit for degassing is arranged between the processing unit and the device for producing pellets or test specimens or the dosing pump for transferring the product into a collecting vessel (Fig 1 items 1, 35, 45, 51 and 34).
Regarding claim 3, ‘384 teaches the system wherein the separation unit for degassing comprises a degassing vessel and a vacuum pump which is connected to the degassing vessel (Fig 1 item 51).
Regarding claim 4, ‘384 teaches the system wherein the device for producing pellets or test specimens comprises a dosing unit (Fig 1 item 34, C12L50).
Regarding claim 9, ‘384 teaches the system wherein the processing unit comprises a processing vessel and the processing vessel and/or the degassing vessel comprise a stirrer (Fig 1 items 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, ‘384 teaches the system wherein the stirrer is a horseshoe mixer (Fig 1 item 3).
Regarding claim 11, ‘384 teaches the system wherein the horseshoe mixer comprises at least one stirrer blade which is designed such that solid material which deposits on the walls of the processing vessel and/or the degassing vessel is scraped off the walls by the stirrer blade (Fig 1 item 3).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘384 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 4,393,171 to Bracke et al. (‘171 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘384 does not teach a gear pump. In the related art of polymer production, ‘171 teaches the system wherein the dosing unit or the dosing pump is a gear type pump (C7L46-C7L48) for the benefit of transporting polymer melt to a pelletization die. It would have been obvious to one possessed of orinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘384 with those of ‘171 for the benefit of pelletizing samples in a continuous or semi-continuous manner.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘384 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 4,188,432 to Holden et al. (‘432 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘384 does not teach a mold. In the same field of endeavor, material development and testing, ‘432 teaches that it is known to make pellets with a mold (C13L24-C13L27) for the benefit of preparing samples for further testing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘384 with those of ‘432 for the benefit of preparing samples.
Regarding claim 6, ‘384 does not teach the relation between a mold and a dosing unit. In the same field of endeavor, material development and testing, ‘432 teaches the system wherein a mold for forming the pellets or the test specimens is connected to the dosing unit(C13L24-C13L27, the prior art single screw extruder is the claimed dosing unit) for the benefit of preparing samples for further testing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘384 with those of ‘432 for the benefit of preparing samples.
Regarding claim 7, ‘384 does not teach a screw extruder. In the same field of endeavor, material development and testing, ‘171 teaches the system wherein the dosing unit is a screw injection machine (C13L24-C13L27) for the benefit of preparing samples for further testing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘384 with those of ‘432 for the benefit of preparing samples.
Regarding claim 8, ‘384 does not teach an injection molding machine or extruder. In the same field of endeavor, materials development and testing, ‘432 teaches the system wherein the screw injection machine is an extruder or an injection molding machine (C13L24-C13L27) for the benefit of preparing samples for further testing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘384 with those of ‘432 for the benefit of preparing samples.
Claim(s) 12 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘384 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0135958 to Kazemi et al. (‘958 hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, ‘384 does not teach a vessel holder for changing the processing vessel. In the related art of polymer production, ‘958 teaches the system wherein the processing unit comprises a processing vessel and a vessel holder for changing the processing vessel (Fig 4 items 11a and 112a and associated labelled feeds and outflows teach an arrangement of processing vessels which can be operated in serial or parallel modes. Additionally, the arrangement would allow the use of vessel 111a or 112a in isolation) for the benefit of producing desired polymer blends efficiently. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of 384 with those of ‘985 for the benefit of increasing process efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, ‘384 does not teach the claimed arrangement. In the related art of polymer production, ‘958 teaches the system wherein the feeding device and the outlet are connected to the vessel holder (Fig 4 items 11a and 112a and associated labelled feeds and outflows teach an arrangement of processing vessels which can be operated in serial or parallel modes. Additionally, the arrangement would allow the use of vessel 111a or 112a in isolation) for the benefit of producing desired polymer blends efficiently. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of 384 with those of ‘985 for the benefit of increasing process efficiency.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘384 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 5,254,647 to Yamamoto et al. (‘647 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, ‘384 does not teach a cleaning unit. In the related art of polymer production, ‘647 teaches the system wherein the system comprises a cleaning unit for cleaning the processing unit (C6L11-C6ZL23) for the benefit of increasing unit up-time. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teaching of ‘384 with those of ‘647 for the benefit of increasing unit up-time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0232074 to Higashihara et al. teaches a frame and holder for a number of removable reaction vessels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743