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 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 1-7 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 “said laterally disposed oil-jacketed melting kettle” in lines 9-10. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 previously recites “at least one laterally disposed oil-jacketed melting kettle”. The limitation will be interpreted as “said at least one laterally disposed oil-jacketed melting kettle” for consistency and clarity.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “said laterally disposed kettle” in line 3. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 previously recites “at least one laterally disposed oil-jacketed melting kettle”. The limitation will be interpreted as “said at least one laterally disposed kettle” for consistency and clarity.
Claim 5 recites “said kettle” in the last line. There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 previously recites “at least one laterally disposed oil-jacketed melting kettle”. The limitation will be interpreted as “said at least one laterally disposed kettle” for consistency and clarity.
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 1 recites “a heating mechanism for heating” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being a means plus function limitation. The specification indicates “The heating mechanism utilizes oil as a heat transfer medium.” (Paragraph 46, lines 10-11).
--Claim 8 recites “a heating mechanism attached to said vehicle for heating” which is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as being a means plus function limitation. The specification indicates “The heating mechanism utilizes oil as a heat transfer medium.” (Paragraph 46, lines 10-11).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker (US 10,883,232 B2) in view of Li et al. (CN111041963A).
Regarding claim 1: Crocker discloses a device (10) for melting and applying thermoplastic materials to surface. The device includes a kettle (60). The kettle uses air or oil heat-transfer jacket (61) (Abstract; column-4, lines 30-33). There is a screw conveyor (auger) (68) ran by a motor (70) for supplying non molten thermoplastic materials to the kettle (60) for heating and agitation (column 8, lines 12-34). The kettle also has an aperture at a first end thereof for accepting thermoplastic granules, a second end of said at least one conduit fluidly connected to a material discharge (78) (column 10, lines 17-21). A heating mechanism (30), that uses oil, is further included to heat the kettle in order to melt the thermoplastic granules (column 7, lines 12-26; column 8, lines 41-45).
Crocker does not teach a kettle that is oriented laterally.
However, Li discloses a road marking vehicle having laterally arranged oil jacketed melting kettle (24) mounted on a rectangular vehicle frame (paragraph 0013 and 0044). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Crocker's orientation of kettle (60) from vertical to horizontal orientation, for the benefit of providing a side-by-side arrangement, which take up less space (paragraph 0013; Fig 1) and to increase the efficiency of road marking operations (paragraph 0008).
Regarding Claim 3: Crocker discloses the melting marking device (10) could be mounted on a walk-behind system, pulled on a trailer, or built on a vehicle chassis and discusses platform/ladder/steps as a convenience for operator access (column 3, lines 40-46).
Regarding Claim 4: Crocker discloses a screw conveyor (auger) (68) that is rotated by a motor (70) for transporting thermoplastic into the melting kettle and for agitation of thermoplastic (column 8, lines 12-34), but does not teach that the auger (68) is rotated by a hydraulically-driven sprocket set.
However, Li teaches a sprocket assembly (32) with the mixing/stirring shaft(auger) (30) (paragraph 0044; Fig. 6). Li further shows that the sprocket set (32) is hydraulically-driven (paragraph 0013; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the auger taught by Crocker to be actuated by a hydraulically-driven sprocket set assembly, as taught by Li, for the equivalent purpose of stirring the hot melt.
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding Claim 5: Crocker discloses a hopper (20) and chute (24) combination to guide non-molten thermoplastic granules into the kettle (Column 6, lines 43-45; Column 6 lines 66,67 to Column 7, lines 1-5).
Regarding Claim 6: Crocker teaches that glass beads are used for retro-reflectivity for surface markings (column 2, lines 41-50). Crocker further discloses a hopper(tank/storage) (20) to hold thermoplastic materials (Column 10, lines 43-45), but does not explicitly disclose a holding tank to store glass-beads and place glass beads into molten thermoplastic materials. However, Li teaches a glass bead system (6) that includes a glass bead tank (40) that is connected with a glass bead spray gun (41) through a pipeline. A pressure control valve (42) is arranged on the glass bead pipeline. Glass beads are provided to the glass beads spray gun (41) through the pressure control valve (42) and the glass bead pipeline and the glass beads are sprayed during scribing operation (paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an additional tank for beads and an arrangement taught by Li to Crocker's invention, to apply glass beads with molten thermoplastic material to surface for road marking (paragraph 0048) and provide retro-reflectivity to the marking.
Regarding Claim 8: Crocker discloses a device (10) for melting and applying thermoplastic materials to surface. The melting marking device (10) could be mounted on a walk-behind system, pulled on a trailer, or built on a vehicle chassis and discusses platform/ladder/steps as a convenience for operator access (column 3, lines 40-46). The device includes a kettle (60) that uses air or oil heat-transfer jacket (61) (Abstract; column-4, lines 30-33). There is a screw conveyor (auger) (68) ran by a motor (70) for supplying non molten thermoplastic materials to the kettle (60) for heating and agitation (Column 8, lines 12-34). The kettle also has an aperture at a first end thereof for accepting thermoplastic granules, a second end of said at least one conduit fluidly connected to a material discharge (78) (column 10, lines 17-21). A heating mechanism (30), that uses oil, is further included to heat the kettle in order to melt the thermoplastic granules (Column 7, lines 12-26; Column 8, lines 41-45).
Crocker does not teach multiple kettles oriented in a lateral position; or a platform positioned over kettles.
However, Li discloses a road marking vehicle having three sets of melting kettle assemblies (24) that may be individually heated (paragraph 0046; Fig. 4). Li further teaches that the kettle assemblies (24) laterally-oriented on a rectangular vehicle frame such that they are arranged side-by-side, and a heating system that utilizes oil for heating (paragraph 0013 and 0044). Li also teaches a carriage (19) including a platform positioned above kettles (24) to place raw materials (paragraph 0043; Fig. 4). Li also teaches the road marking vehicle comprises of a power system (1) which includes an automobile chassis assembly (15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include additional kettles that are laterally oriented, and a platform positioned over kettles, in the apparatus of Crocker, as taught by Li for the benefit of heating thermoplastic materials at different temperatures, reducing space with a side-by-side arrangement, and to provide space to place raw materials.
Regarding Claim 9: Crocker discloses a device (10) for melting and applying thermoplastic materials to surface. The melting marking device (10) could be mounted on a walk-behind system, pulled on a trailer, or built on a vehicle chassis and discusses platform/ladder/steps as a convenience for operator access (column 3, lines 40-46); but Crocker does not disclose a platform that is positioned over a kettle.
However, Li teaches a carriage (19) including a platform positioned above kettles (24) to place raw materials (para 0043; Fig. 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a platform positioned over kettles in the apparatus of Crocker, as taught by Li, to place raw materials.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker (US 10, 883, 232) in view of Li et al. (CN 111041963A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Crocker (11,174,858 B2).
Regarding Claim 2: Crocker '232 discloses conduit (66) members constructed from a heat conductive material and having an aperture at a first end thereof for accepting thermoplastic granules, a second end of said at least one conduit fluidly connected to a material discharge collector at the bottom end of said kettle for discharging molten thermoplastic (column 10, lines 17-23).
Crocker '232 and Li do not teach about a thermo pump for discharging molten thermoplastic material.
However, Crocker ‘858 teaches a pump (thermo pump) (10) for applying thermoplastic materials to road surface. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a thermo pump in the apparatus of Crocker ‘232, as taught by Crocker ‘858, to apply molten thermoplastic to a surface (column 6, lines 61-62).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Crocker (US 10,883,232 B2) in view of Li et al. (CN111041963A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganzer et al. (US 2015/0075625 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Crocker teaches a valve at discharge to apply thermoplastic material to surface, but does not teach an electric knife gate valve on discharge.
Li does not teach about an electric gate valve to apply thermoplastic material to surface.
However, Ganzer teaches an electric rotary knife gate valve (Figs. 9-11D) at discharge to control flow of molten material from a container outlet (paragraph 0062-0068). Ganzer further states that the rotational force of the electric rotary knife gate valve may be provided either manually or by a motor (paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify to Crocker’s marking device to include the electric rotary knife gate valve, as taught by Ganzer, to enable automated and controlled flow regulation while discharging molten thermoplastic material (for motivation see paragraph 0007, 0009).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wasiqul Haq whose telephone number is (571)272-9973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/W.H./
/WASIQUL HAQ/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717