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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification filed 9 June 2026 are acknowledged. The specification objection and the drawing objection set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn. Applicant is advised that the fourth amendment to the specification, directed to page 6, lines 1 and 2, is not marked to show the changes made relative to the previous version of the text. The reference characters “9a and 10a” are added by that amendment and should have been underlined. No text is deleted by that amendment. See 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1).
The abstract filed 9 June 2026 is acknowledged. The objections to the abstract set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment. The amendment, however, deleted the second paragraph of the abstract in its entirety. That paragraph was the only portion of the abstract describing the media feed channel opening into the screw shaft and the mixing device arranged in the region of the screw conveyor. A new objection to the abstract is set forth below.
The claim objections and § 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments. The interpretation of “comparison and evaluation device” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), set forth in the previous Office action, is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claim 9. No limitation in the claims currently under consideration is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 June 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hunold is directed to a method of making an electrically conductive electrode member and that the reference therefore does not teach or suggest the elements of amended claim 1. The argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on the electrode member or on the method of making it. The rejection relies on the charging device 17 disclosed at [0027] of Hunold, including the feed hopper 18 driven by drive motor 21 and the conveyor screw 19 driven by drive motor 20, which Hunold discloses as supplying compound material into the plasticizing barrel 15 of injection unit 14. The intended use of the material processed by that charging device does not distinguish the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II).
Applicant otherwise argues that the references, individually or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1 and of the claims depending therefrom, and that the secondary references do not cure the deficiencies of Hunold. These statements do not identify any claim limitation alleged to be absent from the combination, and do not address the mappings or the reasons for combining set forth in the previous Office action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention, without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, does not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). See MPEP 707.07(f).
To the extent applicant’s arguments are directed to the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejections of record are based on what the combined teachings of Hunold, Brams, Gisko, Saito, König, and Barr would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further quotes case law regarding teaching away but does not identify any disclosure in any applied reference that would have discouraged one of ordinary skill in the art from following the path set out in the rejections. No teaching away has been established.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, and with respect to claim 10, applicant argues only that the additionally cited references do not cure the asserted deficiencies of Hunold, Brams, Gisko, Saito, and König. Because no deficiency in that combination has been identified, the argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above. It is further noted that Eauclaire is no longer relied upon, and that claim 10 is rejected above over a different combination of references.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains, and because it uses a phrase that can be implied (“Embodiments of the present disclosure include”). See MPEP § 608.01(b).
As amended, the abstract recites only the subject matter of the preamble of claim 1, namely a material conveying device having a feed hopper rotatable relative to a bracket, a screw conveyor arranged in a screw shaft of the bracket, and at least one drive device. The specification identifies material conveying devices of this type, having a rotating feed hopper and a screw conveyor rotatably mounted along a generatrix, as known from EP 0 286 972 A2, EP 0 470 510 A2, EP 0 687 543 A2, EP 1 317 009 A2, DE 10 2019 115 122 A1, and WO 2014/198 503 A1 (see page 1 of the specification). The amended abstract therefore describes only apparatus acknowledged to be known, and omits the technical disclosure of the improvement on which the claims are based.
Applicant is further advised, not as a ground of objection, that the abstract retains the recitation “a screw shaft of the bracket, which is designed to convey the feed material from the feed hopper to an outlet”. The corresponding language in claim 1 was amended on 9 June 2026 to specify that it is the screw conveyor, rather than the bracket, that conveys the feed material. A corresponding change to the abstract would avoid an inconsistency between the abstract and the claims.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an actual current consumption of the at least one drive device of the screw conveyor or of the at least one drive device of the feed hopper”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one drive device of the feed hopper” in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “at least one drive device” only in connection with the screw conveyor (“wherein the screw conveyor is drivable via at least one drive device”), and nowhere establishes that the feed hopper is driven or that any drive device is associated with the feed hopper. It is therefore unclear whether claim 1 requires a drive device for the feed hopper in addition to the drive device for the screw conveyor, whether the two recitations refer to a single drive device that drives both, or whether a feed hopper drive device is required at all, given that the conveying parameter is “selected from one or more of” the recited alternatives.
The ambiguity extends to claim 16, which recites “wherein the feed hopper is drivable via the at least one drive device”. Because claim 1 now refers both to “at least one drive device” (of the screw conveyor) and to “the at least one drive device of the feed hopper”, it cannot be determined which of these claim 16 references, particularly as claim 16 recites the feed hopper as being drivable via a previously introduced drive device rather than reciting a drive device of the feed hopper.
For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted as reciting “or of at least one drive device of the feed hopper”. As set forth in the Claim Interpretation section below, the recitation “wherein the additional medium is configured to be supplied to the material conveying device as a function of at least one conveying parameter”, together with the alternatives defining that parameter, is not given patentable weight in claim 1. The recited alternatives are accordingly not reached, and claim 1 is not construed as requiring a drive device for the feed hopper. Should claim 1 be amended so that the supply of the additional medium is recited as a structural configuration of the material conveying device, the antecedent basis issue identified above would require resolution.
Claim 1 further recites “an actual current consumption of the at least one drive device of the screw conveyor or of the at least one drive device of the feed hopper comprising at least one electric motor”. It is unclear what element the phrase “comprising at least one electric motor” modifies. Under the ordinary rules of grammar the phrase modifies the nearest antecedent, “the feed hopper”, which would require the feed hopper itself to comprise an electric motor. The specification indicates that the phrase is instead intended to modify the drive device or devices, describing the drive devices 9, 10 as formed by electric motors 9a, 10a (see page 5, lines 14-15, and page 6, lines 1-2, of the specification as amended). It is further unclear whether the electric motor is required for both recited alternatives or only for the second.
This ambiguity arises from the amendment filed 9 June 2026. Claim 9 as previously presented recited “the drive device of the screw conveyor or of the feed hopper comprising at least one electric motor”, in which the phrase “comprising at least one electric motor” modified the single recited drive device. The amendment repeated the full recitation “the at least one drive device” in the second alternative, creating two parallel noun phrases and leaving the modifying phrase without a clear referent.
For purposes of examination, the phrase is being interpreted as modifying each recited drive device, such that whichever drive device supplies the current consumption comprises at least one electric motor.
Claim 1 recites “wherein at least one conveying parameter is selected from one or more of” immediately following the recitation “as a function of at least one conveying parameter”. It is unclear whether the second recitation refers to the conveying parameter of the immediately preceding clause or introduces a further, distinct conveying parameter. The ambiguity carries into claim 10, which depends from claim 1 and recites “the at least one conveying parameter”, such that it cannot be determined which conveying parameter claim 10 references. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted as reciting “wherein the at least one conveying parameter is selected from one or more of”, i.e., as referring to a single conveying parameter throughout.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
As previously discussed, the claim limitations “drive device” (claim 1), “mixing device” (claim 1), and “electronic control unit” (claim 10) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although “device” and “unit” can serve as a generic placeholder, the terms “drive device”, “mixing device”, and “electronic control unit” are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that if persons of ordinary skill understand the term to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, even when the term covers a broad class of structures or identifies the structures by their function, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) will not apply).
Claim 1 recites “wherein the additional medium is configured to be supplied to the material conveying device as a function of at least one conveying parameter”. The additional medium is the material worked upon by the claimed apparatus rather than a structural element of the apparatus. See MPEP § 2115. The recitation is directed to the additional medium and to the manner in which it is supplied, and does not require any particular structure of the material conveying device. This limitation is accordingly not given patentable weight in the apparatus claims. Claim 1 is not construed as requiring any sensing or control structure by which the supply of the additional medium is made a function of a conveying parameter. Such structure is recited in claim 10 (“at least one electronic control unit which is designed to control the supply of the additional medium as a function of the at least one conveying parameter”).
The recitation “wherein at least one conveying parameter is selected from one or more of”, and the three alternatives that follow it, serve only to define the conveying parameter introduced by the foregoing recitation. These recitations are likewise not given patentable weight in claim 1.
Applicant may overcome this construction by amending claim 1 to recite that the material conveying device is configured to supply the additional medium as a function of the at least one conveying parameter.
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, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0137073 (“Hunold”), as evidenced by US 5,577,839 (“Brams”), in view of US 5,662,415 (“Gisko”) (cited in an IDS), US 2010/0327728 (“Saito”), and US 2018/0354159 (“König”).
Regarding claim 1, Hunold discloses a material conveying device (charging device 17; see Figure 1 and [0027]) for feeding an injection molding or extrusion unit (injection unit 14 of the injection molding machine; see Figure 1 and [0026]-[0027]) with a non-free-flowing or viscous feed material (see MPEP 2114(II) and 2115; regardless, see [0002] and [0006]),
wherein the material conveying device includes a feed hopper rotatable relative to a bracket about an axis of rotation (feed hopper 18, which is driven by drive motor 21 for rotation and is mounted on a stationary support structure (bracket) that supports the hopper and houses the screw passage; see Figure 1 and [0027]; Hunold incorporates Brams by reference, and Brams fully describes this type of charging device including the stationary housing/support relative to which the hopper rotates) and a screw conveyor arranged rotatably along an inner jacket surface of the feed hopper in a screw shaft of the bracket, which screw conveyor is configured to convey the feed material from the feed hopper to an outlet (conveyor screw 19, which extends through hopper 18, is driven by drive motor 20, rotates within the interior of hopper 18, i.e., along the inner jacket surface of the hopper, and operates within a stationary passage (screw shaft) in the support structure (bracket), conveying material from the hopper 18 into the plasticizing barrel 15; see Figure 1 and [0027] as well as Brams),
wherein the screw shaft is connected to a hopper outlet of the feed hopper (the stationary passage (screw shaft) through which conveyor screw 19 operates is connected to the outlet of hopper 18, i.e., the lower portion where material exits the hopper into the screw passage, as shown in Figure 1 and as described in Brams),
and wherein the screw conveyor is drivable via at least one drive device (drive motor 20 for driving the conveyor screw 19 and drive motor 21 for driving the hopper 18; see [0027]).
Hunold does not disclose a media feed channel opening into the screw shaft, which media feed channel is designed to feed at least one additional medium to the feed material.
Gisko is directed to a method and apparatus for processing and degassing mixtures or matrices of material (see column 1, lines 7-14). In particular, a conveyor 10 uses a screw 28 to convey material within a housing 24 from an inlet 14 to an outlet 16 (see Figure 1 and column 2, lines 7-56). Gisko discloses a second inlet 90 located in a downstream section 42 of the conveyor housing 24 and that connects to a catalyst source 92 (see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 53-59). Under operation of controller 34, the catalyst source 92 injects catalysts or other additives into the downstream passageway 50 (see id.). The second inlet 90 constitutes a media feed channel that opens into the screw housing and is designed to feed an additional medium (catalyst/additive) to the material being conveyed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging device of Hunold to include a media feed channel (second inlet) opening into the screw shaft, as taught by Gisko, in order to introduce additives such as catalysts, cross-linking agents, or colorants into the material stream during conveying. Both Hunold and Gisko are directed to screw-based conveying apparatus for processing polymer/composite materials, and Gisko explicitly teaches that a second inlet for additives can be incorporated into the downstream section of a screw conveyor housing to inject catalysts or other additives into the material stream (column 3, lines 53-59). This would represent the application of a known technique (additive inlet for a screw conveyor) to a known device (Hunold’s charging device) to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that enabling in-line additive introduction provides processing flexibility and eliminates the need for pre-mixing.
Modified Hunold does not disclose a mixing device arranged in the region of the screw conveyor, which mixing device is designed to mix the feed material and the additional medium.
Saito is directed to a screw extruder for producing resin compositions in which a thermoplastic resin is fed at a first feed port and a filler is fed at a second feed port downstream (see Figure 1, [0033]-[0035], and [0039]). Kneading disk sections are arranged on the screw downstream of the second feed port to disperse and mix the filler into the resin melt (see Figure 1 and [0036]). Saito teaches the general principle that, when an additive is introduced at a secondary inlet in a screw conveyor, mixing/kneading elements should be positioned downstream of that inlet to ensure adequate dispersion and mixing of the additive with the base material.
König is directed to a mixing device for use in an extruder and comprising at least one disk (plates 4) with interruptions (grooves 6) attached to the extruder shaft and co-rotating therewith (see Figures 1-2, [0001], and [0013]-[0014]). König teaches that such disk-type mixing elements are effective for dispersing solids, liquids, and gases in plastic compositions, with improved dispersion effect and/or reduced energy input (see [0001], [0007]-[0008], and [0034]-[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Hunold/Gisko combination by arranging a mixing device in the region of the screw conveyor downstream of or at the media feed channel, as taught by Saito, in order to ensure adequate mixing and dispersion of the introduced additive medium with the feed material. Saito establishes that it is conventional practice in polymer processing to position kneading/mixing elements on a screw downstream of an additive feed port to achieve dispersion of the additive in the base material ([0036]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that simply introducing an additive through a feed channel without providing a mixing element would result in inadequate dispersion and would thus have been motivated to include a mixing device at or downstream of the media feed channel.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the mixing disk structure taught by König as the mixing device because König teaches that disk-type mixing elements with grooves/interruptions are effective for dispersing additives in polymer compositions ([0001]). The selection of König’s disk-type mixing elements from among known mixing element configurations available for single-screw extruders represents an obvious design choice yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The remaining recitations of claim 1, directed to the supply of the additional medium to the material conveying device as a function of at least one conveying parameter and to the alternatives defining that conveying parameter, are not given patentable weight for the reasons set forth in the Claim Interpretation section above.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hunold discloses that the mouth of the media feed channel into the screw shaft is arranged between the hopper outlet and an end of the screw conveyor facing the outlet (Gisko’s second inlet 90 is located in the downstream section 42 of the conveyor housing 24, which is the section between the hopper/inlet area and the discharge end of the screw conveyor; see Figure 1 of Gisko; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a corresponding position when modifying Hunold).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hunold discloses that the mixing device is arranged in the screw shaft (König’s mixing disk(s) are attached to the extruder shaft within the extruder barrel, i.e., within the screw shaft; see [0013] and Figures 1-2 of König; see also Figure 1 of Saito; in the combination, the mixing device would be arranged within the screw shaft of the bracket of Hunold’s charging device, as taught by König and Saito).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hunold discloses that the mixing device comprises at least one mixing disk, wherein the mixing disk has at least one recess on the circumference (König discloses disk-shaped mixing elements (plates 4) having recesses on their circumference (grooves 6); see Figures 1-2 and [0013]-[0014] of König).
Regarding claim 6, modified Hunold discloses that at least one mixing disk of the mixing device is non-rotatably connected to the screw conveyor (König’s plates 4 are bonded to the extruder shaft and co-rotate therewith, i.e., they are non-rotatably connected to the shaft; see [0001] and [0013]-[0014] of König).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hunold discloses that the feed hopper is drivable via the at least one drive device (Hunold discloses drive motor 21 for driving the hopper 18 for rotation; see [0027]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunold, as evidenced by Brams, in view of Gisko, Saito, and König, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,254,266 (“Barr”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hunold does not disclose that at least one mixing disk of the mixing device is floatingly connected to the screw conveyor.
Barr is directed to an extruder mixer for polymer processing (see column 1, lines 10-13). Barr discloses a mixing assembly having a plurality of driven rotor rings 28 fixed to a rotor sleeve 26 (keyed to the driven extruder shaft 20), interleaved with a plurality of floating rings 36 (see Figure 1 and column 4, lines 20-35). The floating rings 36 are “not driven by rotor sleeve 26 but are instead mounted so as to be capable of rotation relative to rotor sleeve 26” (see column 4, lines 35-37). The floating rings have an outer cylindrical surface 42 that lightly engages the inner cylindrical surface 12 of the barrel, and the viscosity of the polymer melt causes the floating rings to rotate at a slower speed than the driven rings, creating a speed differential that produces shearing and mixing (see column 4, lines 42-51 and column 5, lines 5-36). The floating rings constitute mixing disks floatingly connected to the screw/shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one mixing disk of the mixing device with a floating connection to the screw conveyor, as taught by Barr, in order to create a differential rotational speed between the mixing disk and the screw conveyor that subjects the feed material and additional medium to shearing forces for enhanced mixing (column 5, lines 5-36). Barr teaches that this floating arrangement provides effective mixing of viscous polymer melts, which is directly applicable to the viscous feed materials processed by the device of Hunold. The combination amounts to substituting one known type of mixing element connection for another (floating in Barr vs fixed in König) to achieve a predictable variation in the mixing action. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hunold does not explicitly disclose that the at least one mixing device is arranged downstream of the screw conveyor.
Barr further discloses that the entire mixing section (driven rotor rings 28 and floating rings 36) is positioned on a driven shaft extension 20 that extends from the downstream end of the extruder screw 16 (see Figure 1 and column 4, lines 20-35). The upstream portion of the extruder screw 16 comprises a spiral screw flight and is rotatably driven for feeding polymer (see Figure 1 and column 4, lines 5-19), while the downstream portion provides mixing via the ring assembly (see column 5, lines 30-36). The rings 28, 36 are positioned past the terminal end of the screw flight, on the shaft extension 20 within the same barrel bore (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arranged the mixing device of modified Hunold downstream of the screw conveyor, as taught by Barr, in order to ensure that the feed material and additional medium are thoroughly mixed before discharge to the injection molding or extrusion unit. Barr teaches that positioning the mixing section on a shaft extension downstream of the screw flights ensures thorough mixing of the polymer melt before it exits the apparatus (column 3, lines 7-13). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that placing the mixing device downstream of the screw conveyor ensures that mixing occurs after the additive has been introduced and conveyed through the screw section, yielding more complete dispersion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunold, as evidenced by Brams, in view of Gisko, Saito, and König, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0007265 (“See”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hunold does not disclose that the material conveying device has at least one electronic control unit which is designed to control the supply of the additional medium as a function of the at least one conveying parameter.
See is directed to an additive delivery system for the proportional administration of a liquid additive, including a colorant, into a plastics melting process (see the abstract and [0002] and [0025]). Sensors on an extruder 41 provide feedback to a high pressure nozzle controller 43, which determines at what point the nozzle valve 49 opens and closes, thus maintaining proper and proportional additive delivery into the melt (see Figure 2 and [0028]), and which is a programmable logic controller (see [0032]-[0033]). See discloses that the output from an extruder is monitored according to the RPM of the screw or the amperage of the screw drive motor (see [0034]), and that motor amperage is generally the most directly correlated indicator of output from the process (see [0037]). The extruder 71 reports amperage 72 to the nozzle controller 73 (see Figure 4 and [0035]), and the system includes amperage tracking devices connected to the extruder to provide current feedback from the extruder to the nozzle controller (see [0038]). The nozzle controller sets the revolutions per minute of the dosing pump while monitoring the amperage of the extruder (see [0043]), such that as the extruder slows down the amperage declines and the output of the dosing pump is correspondingly reduced (see [0044]). See therefore discloses an electronic control unit designed to control the supply of an additional medium as a function of the current consumption of the electric drive motor of the conveying screw, which is the third conveying parameter recited in claim 1.
See further discloses that the amperage signal 111 supplied to the nozzle controller indicates the current or flow rate of the material exiting the extruder (see [0040]), and that the additive delivery system is primarily a pressure feedback system in which pressure sensors monitor the pressure at the output of an extruder to regulate additive input (see [0036]). To the extent the second conveying parameter recited in claim 1 is read as encompassing a flow rate of the feed material determined at the outlet, See discloses that alternative as well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the material conveying device of modified Hunold with an electronic control unit designed to control the supply of the additional medium as a function of the current consumption of the drive device of the screw conveyor, as taught by See, in order to maintain the additional medium in correct proportion to the feed material actually being conveyed. See teaches that motor amperage is the most directly correlated indicator of process output ([0037]), and that proportioning additive delivery to process output causes the introduction of the additive to change proportionally as process output changes, thereby preventing over dosing and under dosing of the additive ([0009]). See further teaches that additives including colorants are added to both extrusion and injection molding processes ([0003]), and that additive delivery is preferably made downstream on the extruder barrel rather than at the feed throat so that the additive is delivered in precise proportion to the output ([0029]), which corresponds to the placement of the media feed channel in modified Hunold.
Modified Hunold accordingly discloses that the material conveying device has at least one electronic control unit which is designed to control the supply of the additional medium as a function of the at least one conveying parameter (Gisko’s controller 34, which connects to sensors and controls both motor speed and additive supply (see column 3, lines 44-59 of Gisko), together with See’s high pressure nozzle controller 43, which controls the dosing pump as a function of the amperage of the screw drive motor (see Figure 2 and [0028], [0043], and [0044] of See), provide an electronic control unit designed to control supply of the additional medium as a function of the conveying parameter).
To the extent the recitations in claim 1 directed to the supply of the additional medium as a function of at least one conveying parameter, and to the alternatives defining that conveying parameter, are given patentable weight contrary to the Claim Interpretation section above, claims 1-4, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunold, as evidenced by Brams, in view of Gisko, Saito, and König, and further in view of See, and claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the same references and further in view of Barr, for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Conclusion
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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM 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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights