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 1 and 4 are amended. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s argument with regard to the references in Volpato, the relied-upon cavity 30 (where the deformation-sensitive elements E1, E2 are applied) is not provided at an upright as claimed. Instead, the relied-upon cavity 30 is provided in the "tubular element 7". This argument is not found persuasive. The Applicant appears to argue against the references Corti and Volpata individually. The primary reference Corti teach that the limitations that the at least one of said plurality of uprights/verticals comprising at least one deformation detection sensor applied at least one available deformation surface thereof and adapted to detect longitudinal deformations and/or transversal deformations of said at least one of said plurality of uprights ([0161], Figure 7c’-c-d, strain gauge-34 attached on the deformation surface detects the local deformation adapted to detect on a circumferential section). The Volpata reference shows that the strain gauge for the deformation sensors are provided in the cavity. Therefore the combining of the references would meet the new amended claim limitations. It is well-settled that one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As a result of this applicant’s arguments are considered to not add any persuasion to the amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corti (US 20210001525) in view of Volpato (US 20200307024) .
Regarding Claim 1 Corti discloses spacer for high pressure mixing head comprising: a control cylinder flange; a head body flange; and a plurality of uprights/verticals adapted to interconnect said control cylinder flange and said head body flange ([0026], [0154] , [0161], control cylinder-15, Figure 7b-c, head body-2 with flange-37, Figure 5 showing the upright that interconnects the head body-2 and control cylinder-15 ), at least one of said plurality of uprights/verticals comprising at least one deformation detection sensor applied at least one available deformation surface thereof and adapted to detect longitudinal deformations and/or transversal deformations of said at least one of said plurality of uprights ([0161], Figure 7c’-c-d, strain gauge-34 attached on the deformation surface detects the local deformation adapted to detect on a circumferential section). Further, Corti didn’t specifically disclose that plurality of uprights comprises at least one cavity wherein said at least one deformation detection sensor is applied. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Volpato discloses that plurality of uprights comprises at least one cavity wherein said at least one deformation detection sensor is applied (Figure 12, cavity-30, Strain gauge-E1, E2, [0154]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Corti’s teaching of spacer with that of Volpato’s deformation detection sensor placed on the cavity for most precise detection of deformation.
Regarding Claim 3, Corti/Volpato disclose wherein said at least one cavity is made of at least one longitudinal hole according to a longitudinal axis of said at least one of said plurality of uprights wherein said at least one deformation detection sensor is applied (Figure 5 showing the cavity on the upright; Figure 7A’, [0161], deformation surface-35, Corti, Figure 12, cavity-30, Strain gauge-E1, E2, [0154], Volpato).
Regarding Claim 4, Corti discloses at least one available deformation surface of said at least one of said plurality of uprights comprises two cavities (Corti showing more than one cavity in Figure 5) and Volpato disclose wherein said at least one cavity is made of two holes that are symmetric with respect to a longitudinal transversal section according to the axis of said at least one of said plurality of uprights wherein said at least one deformation detection sensor is applied (Figure 12, Strain gauge-E1, E2, [0154], Volpato).
Regarding Claim 5, Corti discloses wherein said available deformation surfaces comprise outer surfaces of said uprights (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 6 Corti discloses, wherein said at least one deformation detection sensor comprises at least one extensometer (strain gauge-34 ,[0161]).
Regarding Claim 7 Corti discloses, wherein said at least one extensometer is applied in longitudinal direction and/or transversal direction with respect to a longitudinal central axis of said at least one of said plurality of uprights (Figure 7A’-A, [0045], [0079], [0161]).
Regarding Claim 8 Corti discloses, comprising two uprights or three uprights or four uprights, or six uprights (Figure 5 showing at least two uprights).
Regarding Claim 9 Corti discloses, wherein said uprights are arranged symmetrically with respect to a longitudinal central axis of said at least one of said plurality of uprights (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 10 Corti discloses wherein said plurality of uprights comprise fillet end portions at said control cylinder flange and at said head body flange (Figure 9 showing two end portions of the cylinder flange and the head body flange).
Regarding Claim 11 Corti discloses, wherein said at least one cavity is filled in with a hardening resin ([0026]).
Regarding Claim 12 Corti discloses, further comprising at least one duct departing from said at least one cavity (Figure 3, duct-4), said at least one duct being adapted to contain at least one connection and power supply wire of said at least one deformation detection sensor ([0160], [0161]).
Regarding Claim 13, Corti disclose the spacer comprises further thin sheets like structure with reduced thickness (Figure 7a-c, [0164]), but didn’t specifically disclose that having thickness comprised between 1 mm and 6 mm, at inner surfaces of said plurality of uprights. However, When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006). SEE MPEP 2131.03II
Regarding Claim 14, Corti discloses wherein said thin sheets comprise windows made with shaped raised edges (Figure 7A).
Regarding Claim 15, Corti discloses wherein said control cylinder flange and said head body flange are spaced by a distance L (Figures 7A’-7A, [0105]) and said at least one available deformation surface is provided within a region delimited away from a transverse centerline of said spacer in opposite directions (Figures 7-9) but didn’t specifically disclose that one available deformation surface is provided within a region delimited by two axes each 2/5L away from a transverse centerline of said spacer in opposite directions. However, When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006). SEE
Regarding Claim 16 Corti/Volpato discloses , said head body flange in order to removably couple said spacer to said head (Corti, [0046]) and fixing holes adapted to receive fixing screws at peripheral portions for each of said control cylinder flange (Volpato, Figure 10 showing the screws at peripheral portions for each of said control cylinder flange) .
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Corti’s teaching of spacer with that of Volpato’s deformation detection sensor placed on the cavity for the purpose of good alignment with cylindrical flange and the spacer.
Regarding Claim 17, Corti discloses high pressure mixing head for injection or casting reaction molding, of the type comprising: a head body, a mixing chamber, obtained in the head body and in fluid communication with a supply duct, at least partially defined by a supply tube or by a joint of a hole in said head body (Figure 1, 7, head body-2[002], [0161]);a self-cleaning stem sliding in said supply duct, said self- cleaning stem being activated by a control device ([0012]), and a spacer according to claim 1, wherein said control cylinder flange is connectable to said control device of said self-cleaning stem and said head body flange is connectable to said head body (([0154] , [0161], control cylinder-15, Figure 7b-c, head body-2 with flange-37, Figure 5 showing the upright that interconnects the head body-2 and control cylinder-15).
Regarding Claim 18 Corti discloses apparatus for injection or casting reaction molding comprising at least one high pressure mixing head according to An apparatus for injection or casting reaction molding comprising at least one high pressure mixing head according to and at least one mould (abstract, [0002], [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19 Corti discloses, further comprising at least one duct departing from said at least one cavity (Figure 3 , duct-4), said at least one duct being adapted to contain at least one connection and power supply wire of said at least one deformation detection sensor and at least one duct being filled in with a hardening resin. ( [0060], [0160], [0161]).
Regarding Claim 20 Corti discloses the spacer comprises further thin sheets like structure with reduced thickness but didn’t specifically disclose that having thickness comprised between 2 mm and 5 mm, at inner surfaces of said plurality of uprights. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006). SEE MPEP 2131.03II
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights