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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 10 recites “by means of the corner locking mechanism” which is not considered invoking a means plus function since “locking mechanism” is considered sufficient structure.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to. It is suggested that “wherein it consists of” be amended to “wherein the driving unit consists of” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to. It is suggested that “wherein it consists of” be amended to “wherein the tank assembly consists of” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim. It is also suggested that the claim be amended from “to carry chassis (20) and container (20)” to “to carry the chassis (20) and container (10)” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 6 is objected to. It is suggested that “wherein it consists of” be amended to “wherein the tank assembly consists of” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 7 is objected to. It is suggested that “wherein it consists of” be amended to “wherein the tank assembly consists of” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 10 is objected to. It is suggested that “wherein it consists of” be amended to “wherein the control method for the tank assembly consists of” 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 it is not clear what is meant by “is sealed properly.” Correction clarification is required.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since they depend on claim 1, and do not overcome the indefinite rejection of claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the base part” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the controlling unit” is not previously referred to in claims 7 or 1, from which claim 8 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the tank assembly” in the first line is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, “the rigid container” in the second line is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, “the chassis” is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, “the driving unit” is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, the controller” is not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, the controller” and “the control unit” are not previously referred to in the claim. Additionally, “the corner-locking mechanism” is not previously referred to in the claim. Finally, claim 10 is rejected for being indefinite since it is not clear what is meant by the limitation “sealed properly.” Correction/clarification required.
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, 4, 6, and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by over Yuechuan (CN209099122U cited in the IDS mailed, a machine translation is provided)
Regarding claim 1, Yuechuan teaches a rigid container (item 7) which is sealed properly and has a liquid transfer opening (item 7 is considered open at the top, and sealed via cover plate item 7); a tank assembly consisting of rigid chassis (items 11 and 1 are considered reading on the rigid chassis) onto which container is placed (item 7 is on item 11), characterized in that it consists of supporting element (item 4 is considered reading on a supporting element) provided between the chassis and container (item 4 is between item 7 and item 1) as well as a driving unit (item 14) that moves the container positioned on the supporting element in such a way that it is agitated on the chassis (page 3 of translation, fifth paragraph last two lines teach the mixing tank can be driven to swing by the hydraulic cylinder 14 to improve the mixing efficiency).
Regarding claim 4, Yuechuan teaches wherein the tank assembly consists of an underframe (item 2 support frame) provided so as to carry the chassis and container at the base part of the chassis (items 2 is mounted below item 1 which is considered reading on a base part of the chassis).
Regarding claim 6, Yuechuan teaches wherein the tank assembly consists of a corner locking mechanism (pin 16 and clamping plate 15 are on the corner of item 1) that enables the container to be stabilized on the chassis (items 16 and 15 keep item 7 stabilized since they allow item 14 to be attached to item 7).
Regarding claim 7, Yuechuan teaches wherein it consists of a controller that controls the operation of the driving unit (hydraulic system gear box item 6).
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 Yuechuan (CN209099122U cited in the IDS mailed, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 9, Yuechuan is silent to the container and chassis being made of metal. Regarding claim 9, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mixing apparatus made of metal in order to obtain a desired rigidity of the apparatus since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 2, 3, and 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by over Yuechuan (CN209099122U cited in the IDS mailed, a machine translation is provided) in further view of Zhufen (CN109016130A, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 2, Yuechuan teaches the driving unit is a hydraulic driving unit (page 3, paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches a hydraulic cylinder 14 and hydraulic system box). Regarding claim 2, Yuechuan is silent to a hydraulic pump and motor designed to impart torque to the hydraulic pump. Regarding claim 2, Zhufen teaches a hydraulic pump (page 4, last line of machine translation-page 5 first line teaches a hydraulic pump) and a motor designed to impart torque to the hydraulic pump (page 4, last line of machine translation-page 5 first line teaches a hydraulic motor for the pump). Regarding claim 2, 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 hydraulic driving unit of Yuechuan with the pump and motor configuration of Zhufen in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Regarding claim 3, Yuechuan teaches wherein the driving unit consists of a hydraulic piston (hydraulic cylinder 14 is considered reading on a piston) positioned at the base part of the chassis (item 14 is placed on item 1 via items 15 and 16). Regarding claim 3, Yuechuan is silent to a hydraulic pump motor. Regarding claim 3, Zhufen teaches a hydraulic pump (page 4, last line of machine translation-page 5 first line teaches a hydraulic pump) and a motor designed to impart torque to the hydraulic pump (page 4, last line of machine translation-page 5 first line teaches a hydraulic motor for the pump). Regarding claim 3, 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 hydraulic driving unit of Yuechuan with the pump and motor configuration of Zhufen in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Regarding claim 5, Yuechuan teaches characterized in that the support element (item 4) has a supporting shaft (page 3, paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches pin 10 rotates and therefore is considered reading on a shaft) that carries the container (page 3, paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches item 10 is connected to the mixing tank and item 4) and chassis at a center point of an underframe (item 10 is in between both items 2 that are considered reading on an underframe) and that it is adjusted to stabilize the movement of the hydraulic piston (items 10 and 4 hold item 7 vessel which is considered helping stabilize item 14 since item 14 is attached to item 7).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuechuan (CN209099122U cited in the IDS mailed, a machine translation is provided) in view of Sheesley (U.S. Publication 2013/0209204).
Regarding claim 8, Yuechuan teaches controlling the operation of the driving unit (hydraulic system gear box item 6 and controller taught in page 4 second paragraph of the machine translation). Regarding claim 8, Yuechuan is silent to the controller positioned in the controlling unit that can be controlled by the user. Regarding claim 8, Sheesley teaches a controller (figure 14 item 226 inherently requires a controller in order to control the hydraulic operation) positioned in a controlling unit (figure 14 shows a controlling unit where a control panel 226 and 210 are housed) that can be controlled by the user (item 226 control panel is an interface for a user). Regarding claim 8, 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 hydraulic driving unit of Yuechuan with the hydraulic control configuration of Sheesley in order to allow for a more precise mixing operation.
Regarding claim 10, Yuechuan teaches a control method for a tank assembly (figure 1 which uses a hydraulic controller as taught on page 4, second paragraph of the machine translation) consisting of the steps of the placement of the rigid container (mixing tank item 7) which is sealed properly (item 7 is considered sealed by cover plate item 12), on the chassis (items 11 and 1 are considered forming the chassis), and stabilization of the container on the chassis by means of the corner locking mechanism (item 16), wherein the control method for the tank assembly consists of the steps of actuating the driving unit (paragraph 4, second paragraph of the machine translation teaches a hydraulic controller, item 14 is considered reading on the driving unit) and agitating the controller by said driving unit (page 3 of translation, fifth paragraph last two lines teach the mixing tank can be driven to swing by the hydraulic cylinder 14 to improve the mixing efficiency). Claim 10, Yuechuan is silent to a control unit. Regarding claim 10, Sheesley teaches a control unit ((figure 14 shows a controlling unit where a control panel 226 and 210 are housed). Regarding claim 10, 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 hydraulic driving unit of Yuechuan with the hydraulic control configuration of Sheesley in order to allow for a more precise mixing operation.
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, 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774