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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The response and amendments, filed 12/16/2025, has been entered. Claims 1-19 are pending. The previous objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendment or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims have been fully considered :
On pages 8-10 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the amended claim because it requires a test rig as prior art teaches a production plant which is much bigger and not a test rig and Brod teaches a continuous system which is not usual for a test rig, and none of prior art teaches a 100 l for maximum volume of test chamber.
Response:
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. See MPEP 2111.01.I
Firstly : based on broadest reasonable interpretation if the prior art teaches the claimed structure, it meets the function, i.e., the prior art serves as blueprints for a test rig or pilot units. Just because an art does not cite “a test rig” if they teach the claimed structure they meet the function of being a test rig. Applicant has not provided which structural claimed limitation is not taught by the prior art, except for the maximum test chamber is 100 l. However, It would have been an obvious matter of choice to have the maximum test chamber is 100 l , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The specific claimed 100 l , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” size of test chamber disclosed by prior art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired volume, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 100 l is used, as already suggested by the prior art of record. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 100 l stated and since these sizes of test rig are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of the prior art. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 100 l or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Secondly : an apparatus becomes a test rig if it :
Simulates a process (feeding, reacting exhausting plastics)
Controls key parameters
Measures outcome via sensors
Allows repeatable experiments
Bellio’s system meets all these requirements. Furthermore, there are many published work citing laboratory degassing equipment with controlled parameters and the ability to evaluate the degassing outcome- functionally what a test rig does. The examples are : US20220324146, WO 2019002100A1, US4820463A.
These patent applications do not call the apparatus as test rig but they teach laboratory or pilot scale degassing equipment with controlled parameters and the ability to evaluate the degassing outcome- functionally what a test rig does.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument on page 6 is persuasive, therefore, the Drawing are accepted and this has been reflected on the office action summary sheet.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: evaluation unit in claim 15. Based on the specification ¶0044 ¶0068-¶0069 and ¶0076 of PG-PUB , evaluation unit is interpreted as component 27 comprising an odor sensor 28 or a gas chromatograph 29 to determine the proportion of volatile components in the bulk material.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected. Claim depends on claim 1 and does not require the steam generator and vent opening.
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 15-16, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1.
Claim 1
Bellio teaches:
An apparatus (1) for determining operating parameters for at least one of degassing and deodorizing plastic particles (e.g.,¶0035), wherein the apparatus 1 comprises at least one test chamber (e.g., fig.3: 2) for at least one of degassing and deodorizing a test quantity of plastic particles (a quantity of plastics), wherein each test chamber (e.g., fig.3: 2) has
a. a filling opening (3) for filling in the test quantity (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics),
b. a withdrawal opening (connected to 4) for withdrawing a sample quantity of the plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: extracting the incoherent plastics),
c. a vent opening (e.g., 6) for venting the test chamber (2),
wherein connected to a feed opening (e.g., 5 connection point of 2 for 17) of the test chamber (2) are at least one of
d. a pressurized gas line (line of gas pressurized by 7) for feeding pressurized gas (process gas e.g., ¶0069) and a heating element (10).
e. a steam line for feeding steam and a steam generator (not required by claim language as Bellio teaches “at least” option (d)).
Bellio teaches all limitations except for it does not specifically teach wherein the test chamber has a maximum volume of at most 100 1 and, wherein the apparatus is a test rig.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of choice to have the maximum test chamber is 100 l , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The specific claimed 100 l , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” size of test chamber disclosed by prior art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired volume, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 100 l is used, as already suggested by the prior art of record. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 100 l stated and since these sizes of test rig are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of the prior art. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 100 l or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner notes that Bellio’s apparatus which includes adjustments for flow or process variables, to evaluate and achieve performance outcomes, through those controlled variables function like a controlled test-or-process rig for degassing and deodorizing plastic particles under controlled conditions. In fact, the very nature of a deodorization apparatus and method of Bellio implies control over the process conditions (temperature, gas flow, vacuum, time), adjusting gas flow, heat, extraction conditions to achieve deodorized outcome. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bellio’s apparatus as a test rig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a repeatable experimental conditions and risk reduction with a lower costs.
Claim 2
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a gas flow regulator (18,e.g., ¶0069) that is connected to the pressurized gas line (line of process gas pressurized by 7).
Claim 3
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a pressurized gas source (source of gas process actuated by 7 as cited above) that is connectable to the pressurized gas line(line of gas pressurized by 7).
Claim 4
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the steam generator has a vent opening (not required by the claim).
Claim 8
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not teach comprising a vent line that is connectable to the vent opening for connecting the test chamber to a central venting system. But
firstly It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a multiple number of Bellio’s test chambers and multiple vent opening, 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 (1977) and secondly: a central venting system connected to vents from each device is well known that an ordinary skill in the art can use for practical reasons such as safely connect, control, and discharge in an efficient environmentally safe, and regulation compliant way. The Examiner adds that fundamental requirement for patentability is being unexpected with unpredictable results, and there is no unexpected results from connecting vent openings to a well-known central venting system.
Claim 9
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a withdrawal unit connected (4) to the one withdrawal opening (opening 4).
Claim 10
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the withdrawal unit 4 comprises a withdrawal pipe (connected 40 4), which can be shut off by means of a shut-off element (12).
Claim 11
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 10, does not teach wherein the withdrawal pipe (4) is a downpipe. But an ordinary skill in art well knows downpipes for draining water and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (downhole pipe) for another (Bellio’s pipe) to obtain predictable results is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 12
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a control unit (9) which is designed to control operating parameters (e.g., ¶0038-¶0040).
Claim 15
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, comprising an evaluation unit (6,9) for the determination of operating parameters (¶0038-¶0040).
Claim 16
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 15, but does not teach wherein the evaluation unit 6,9 comprises a gas chromatograph. But gas chromatograph is a well-known technique and based on MPEP 2143 (B), courts have ruled that Simple substitution of one known element (gas chromatograph) for another (gas sensor 6 connected to controller 9 of Bellio) to obtain predictable results (controlling operating parameters of test chamber as taught by Bellio and cited above e.g., ¶0039¶0040) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 19
Bellio teaches:
A method for determining operating parameters for at least one of degassing and deodorizing plastic particles (e.g.,¶0035) comprising the method steps of
providing an apparatus (e.g., fig.3 1) for determining operating parameters for at least one of degassing and deodorizing plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics using sensors and controller), wherein the apparatus 1 comprises at least one test chamber 2 for at least one of degassing and deodorizing a test quantity of plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics), wherein each test chamber 2 has
a. a filling opening 3 for filling in the test quantity (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics that have a quantity),
b. a withdrawal opening 4 for withdrawing a sample quantity of the plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics having a quantity),
c. a vent opening 6 for venting the test chamber 2, wherein connected to a feed opening 5 of the test chamber 2 are at least one of
d. a pressurized gas line for feeding pressurized gas (line of gas pressurized by 7) and a heating element 10 and
e. a steam line for feeding steam and a steam generator(not required by claim language as Bellio teaches “at least” option (d)),
filling a test quantity of plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics) into the test chamber 2,
at least one of degassing and deodorizing the test quantity (fed material from 3 have a quantity) in the test chamber 2 by feeding (via 5) at least one of temperature-controlled pressurized gas and steam (¶0039¶0040 control unit 9 connected to heater and sensor controlling operation and at least controlling temperature and flow rate that is related to pressure by controller 9 and sensors) via a feed opening 5 of the test chamber 2,
removing a sample quantity of at least one of the degassed and deodorized plastic particles (via 4 and also 6) from the test chamber 2,
determining material properties of the sample quantity (using 8 and other sensors connected to 9),
determining operating parameters for at least one of degassing and deodorizing on the basis of the determined material (using sensors 6 and other sensors connected to controller 9).
Bellio teaches all limitations except for it does not specifically teach wherein the test chamber has a maximum volume of at most 100 1 and, wherein the apparatus is a test rig.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of choice to have the maximum test chamber is 100 l , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The specific claimed 100 l , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” size of test chamber disclosed by prior art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired volume, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 100 l is used, as already suggested by the prior art of record. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 100 l stated and since these sizes of test rig are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of the prior art. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 100 l or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Examiner notes that Bellio’s apparatus can which includes adjustments for flow or process variables, to evaluate and achieve performance outcomes, through those controlled variables function like a controlled test-or-process rig for degassing and deodorizing plastic particles under controlled conditions. In fact, the very nature of a deodorization apparatus and method of Bellio implies control over the process conditions (temperature, gas flow, vacuum, time), adjusting gas flow, heat, extraction conditions to achieve deodorized outcome. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bellio’s apparatus as a test rig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a repeatable experimental conditions and risk reduction with a lower costs.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of Baita, US20100004408A1 and DANG, WO2011083421A1.
Claim 5
Bellio in view of Baita teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein connected to the feed opening of the test chamber is the steam line for feeding the steam and the steam generator, the apparatus further comprising a water softening unit that is connected to the steam generator.
DANG teaches comprising a water softening unit (6) that is connected to the steam generator (8). And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DANG‘s steam generator with a vent opening for the modified Bellio‘s steam line. One of ordinary skill in the art knows steam generators to generate steams with detailed structure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known system for a known application and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements (steam generator of GANG with water softening unit) according to known methods (the Bellio modified with Baita’s stream line) to yield predictable results (producing stream line for test chamber and eliminating unwanted ingredients from untreated water) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 7
Bellio in view of Baita teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein connected to the feed opening of the test chamber is the steam line for feeding the steam and the steam generator, the apparatus further comprising a water source that is connectable to the steam generator. DANG teaches a water source 1,13 that is connectable to the steam generator 13,8. And It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use DANG‘s steam generator with a vent opening for the modified Bellio‘s steam line. One of ordinary skill in the art knows steam generators to generate steams with detailed structure would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use a well-known system for a known application and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements (steam generator of GANG) according to known methods (the Bellio modified with Baita’s stream line) to yield predictable results (producing stream line for test chamber) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of Baita, US20100004408A1 and Ichiki, US20130118168A1.
Claim 6
Bellio in view of Baita teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein connected to the feed opening of the test chamber is the steam line for feeding the steam and the steam generator, the apparatus further comprising a steam volume regulator that is connected to the steam line.
In the similar field of endeavor, Ichiki in fig.1 teaches a steam volume regulator 20 that is connected to the steam line 30 from steam generator 6 and based on MPEP 2143 (A), courts have ruled that Combining prior art elements (steam generator of Ichiki with steam volume regulator) according to known methods (the Bellio modified with Baita’s stream line) to yield predictable results (producing stream line for test chamber) is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of Husemann, US 20180163164 A1.
Claim 13
Bellio teaches
An apparatus (1) for determining operating parameters for at least one of degassing and deodorizing plastic particles (e.g.,¶0035), wherein the apparatus 1 comprises at least one test chamber (e.g., fig.3: 2) for at least one of degassing and deodorizing a test quantity of plastic particles (a quantity of plastics), wherein each test chamber (e.g., fig.3: 2) has
a. a filling opening (3) for filling in the test quantity (e.g., ¶0035: incoherent plastics),
b. a withdrawal opening (connected to 4) for withdrawing a sample quantity of the plastic particles (e.g., ¶0035: extracting the incoherent plastics),
c. a vent opening (e.g., 6) for venting the test chamber (2),
wherein connected to a feed opening (e.g., 5 connection point of 2 for 17) of the test chamber (2) are at least one of
d. a pressurized gas line (line of gas pressurized by 7) for feeding pressurized gas (process gas e.g., ¶0069) and a heating element (10).
e. a steam line for feeding steam and a steam generator (not required by claim language as Bellio teaches “at least” option (d)).
Bellio also teaches comprising a temperature control unit (9 ¶0039¶0040) for controlling the temperature (¶0039¶0040) of the test chamber 2, But does not specifically teach for controlling the temperature of an outer wall of the test chamber, wherein the temperature control unit comprises a double-walled housing surrounding one of the test chamber and a separate heater.
In the similar field of endeavor, Husemann in e.g., fig.4B teaches controlling the temperature of an outer wall 20 of the test chamber 10, wherein the temperature control unit comprises a double-walled housing (internal wall of 10 and wall 20 covered by 25 and medium for controlling temperature) surrounding one of the test chamber 10 and a separate heater (¶0079, not shown but inherently the source to heat or cool medium to maintain the temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Husemann‘s temperature control unit and add it to Bellio‘s temperature control unit, based on MPEP 2143 (C), courts have ruled that Use of known technique (Husemann‘s temperature control unit) to improve similar devices (methods, or products) of Bellio’s controlling operating parameters in the same way is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Bellio combined with Husemann teaches all limitations except for it does not specifically teach wherein the test chamber has a maximum volume of at most 100 1 and, wherein the apparatus is a test rig.
However, It would have been an obvious matter of choice to have the maximum test chamber is 100 l , since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The specific claimed 100 l , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” size of test chamber disclosed by prior art that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired volume, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the 100 l is used, as already suggested by the prior art of record. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the 100 l stated and since these sizes of test rig are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of the prior art. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed 100 l or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner notes that Bellio’s apparatus can which includes adjustments for flow or process variables, to evaluate and achieve performance outcomes, through those controlled variables function like a controlled test-or-process rig for degassing and deodorizing plastic particles under controlled conditions. In fact, the very nature of a deodorization apparatus and method of Bellio implies control over the process conditions (temperature, gas flow, vacuum, time), adjusting gas flow, heat, extraction conditions to achieve deodorized outcome. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bellio’s apparatus as a test rig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a repeatable experimental conditions and risk reduction with a lower costs.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of KUSANO, WO 2015011775 A1.
Claim 14
Bellio teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach comprising a rack supporting the apparatus, to which rack the test chamber is attached.
In the similar field of endeavor, KUSANO teaches a rack 4 supporting the apparatus 1, to which rack 4 the test chamber 1 is attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KUSANO ‘s for Bellio‘s apparatus Based on MPEP 2143 (F), courts have ruled that Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and it is within the purview of a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of Baita, US20100004408A1 and BROD, CA 1300311 C.
Claim 17
Bellio in view of Baita teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein connected to the feed opening of the test chamber are - the pressurized gas line for feeding the pressurized gas and the heating element and,- the steam line for feeding the steam and the steam generator, wherein the pressurized gas line and the steam line are directly connected by means of a connection line.
In the similar field of endeavor, BROD in fig.1 teaches wherein the gas line 22 and the steam line 32 are directly connected by means of a connection line 30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BROD‘s connection line for the modified Bellio‘s apparatus and the modified Bellio’s pressurized gas line and the steam line are directly connected by means of a connection line as taught by BROD. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to form a moist purge gas stream and on duct to the test chamber when it is useful (BROD underlined portions on page 16 of in the English copy provided by the office).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellio, US20230264390A1 in view of Baita, US20100004408A1 and BROD, CA 1300311 C and ABE, WO 03006955 A1.
Claim 18
Bellio combined with Baita and BROD teaches the apparatus according to claim 17, but the combination does not specifically teach wherein a regulating unit is arranged along the connection line. However, firstly, BROD teaches a portion of gas stream is merged by the steam line, and although BROD does not show it but inherently it requires a regulator to adjust the portion, secondly and alternatively/additionally: In the similar field of endeavor, ABE in fig.1 teaches using regulator units 209/207 and 219/208 for stream lines form 20/21 to the chamber 1. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ABE‘s regulator arranged along the modified Bellio‘s connection line. One of ordinary skill in the art would know the portion of gas stream needs to be merged with steam line and have been motivated to make this modification in order to merge the stream in a controllable way and therefore, better system management..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220324146 A1, Klammer
Klammer teaches a device 1 comprising simulating a process ,feeding, reacting exhausting plastics (from 3,4, 6 for supplying 2), controlling key parameters (the free space is a controlled chamber, with evacuation device for gas removal, adjustable measurable structural parameters using mandrel with adjustable gap affecting how the polymer expand and release gas), measuring outcome via sensors (at least one measuring device adapted to determine viscosity, temperature, flow speed of plasticized material), allowing repeatable experiments (inherently met by the device).
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 Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855