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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention 1 (claims 1-10 and 16-17) in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Figs. 1-3) in the reply filed on 29 January 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the asserted search and examination burden is not supported. This is not found persuasive because art relevant to the applicant’s invention is distributed among a large number of CPC symbols. Accordingly, individual features require targeted searching. Note that there are currently 19 CPC symbols applied to the present application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
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.
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.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is two paragraphs, exceeds 150 words in length, uses a phrase that can be implied (“The invention relates to”), and refers to purported merits of the invention (“in the simplest possible way”). 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the term “console” to refer to element 2 in three instances (“an outlet 8 of the console 2”, “a console 2 of a material conveying device 1”, and “the console 2 also has a media feed channel 17”), while the remainder of the specification and the claims refer to this element as the “bracket 2”. These references to “console” should be replaced with “bracket” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 9a and 10a (see Figure 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the clause “which is configured to convey the feed material from the feed hopper to an outlet” grammatically modifies “the bracket” (the nearest antecedent), but based on the specification and reference numerals, the clause is intended to modify “a screw conveyor”. The claim should be amended to clarify that it is the screw conveyor, not the bracket, that is configured to convey the feed material.
In claim 1, “wherein the screw conveyor drivable via at least one drive device” should be amended to recite “wherein the screw conveyor is drivable via at least one drive device”.
In claim 9, “the drive device” should be replaced with “the at least one drive device” for consistency with claim 1, which introduces “at least one drive device”. Additionally, the examiner notes that claim 1 links the at least one drive device to the screw conveyor (“wherein the screw conveyor drivable via at least one drive device”) but does not explicitly link it to the feed hopper. Claim 9 recites “the drive device of the screw conveyor or of the feed hopper”, referencing a relationship between the drive device and the feed hopper that is not previously established. The claims should be amended to clarify this relationship.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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(s) is/are: “comparison and evaluation device” in claim 9.
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. The corresponding structure for the “comparison and evaluation device” is a component 16 integrated into the electronic control unit 14 for comparing a current operating parameter with a defined limit value (see the last paragraph on page 5 of the specification).
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.
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 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 4 and 9-10 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 4 recites “at least one, in particular circular, mixing disk”. The phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the broad limitation is “at least one mixing disk” (of any shape), and the narrower limitation is “circular mixing disk”. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is being interpreted as though the circular shape introduced by the phrase “in particular” is exemplary and not required, i.e., the claim requires “at least one mixing disk” of any shape.
Claim 9 recites “wherein preferably the current consumption can be determined by a comparison and evaluation device” in the last two lines. The word “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the word is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). Specifically, it is unclear whether the comparison and evaluation device is a required feature of the claim (when the current-consumption alternative is selected), or merely an exemplary, non-required feature. For purposes of examination, claim 9 is being interpreted as though the comparison and evaluation device is exemplary and not required.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites “the at least one conveying parameter”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not introduce a “conveying parameter”. This term is first introduced in claim 8. Because claim 10 depends from claim 1 rather than claim 8, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one conveying parameter” in claim 10. For purposes of examination, claim 10 is being interpreted as reciting “at least one conveying parameter” rather than “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 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).
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; see also the corresponding § 112(b) rejection).
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.
Claims 8-10 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 3,892,390 (“Eauclaire”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hunold does not explicitly disclose that the additional medium can be supplied to the material conveying device as a function of at least one conveying parameter.
Eauclaire is directed to an apparatus and method for incorporating additive into plastic and other material in a feed hopper of a screw extruder (see column 1, lines 12-19). Eauclaire discloses a variable speed motor drive 21 for an auger 20 for introducing additive material and an electric motor drive 12 for a screw feed mechanism 11 for transporting thermoplastic material (see Figure 1 and column 3, lines 37-64), which are “controlled from a common electrical or other control device switch for coordinate proportional addition of additive” (see the abstract). Both motors are operated or stopped simultaneously, and the user can adjust relative operating speeds (via motor speed and/or gear reduction) to change the additive-to-plastic ratio (see column 4, lines 14-25). The additive supply is expressly a function of the screw extruder's operating speed, i.e., a conveying parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the supply of the additional medium through the media feed channel of modified Hunold as a function of at least one conveying parameter, as taught by Eauclaire, in order to achieve coordinated proportional addition of additive and ensure a consistent ratio of additional medium to feed material regardless of throughput variations (column 6, lines 14-20). Eauclaire teaches that coordinating additive supply with screw operation via a common control device assures highly reproducible blending from batch to batch and throughout a batch or run of product (column 2, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hunold discloses that at least one conveying parameter is selected from the group consisting of
a current speed of the screw conveyor (Eauclaire's common control device coordinates the additive auger motor speed with the screw extruder motor speed, such that the screw speed is the conveying parameter that governs the additive supply rate; see column 4, lines 14-25 and column 6, lines 14-20 of Eauclaire), wherein the current speed can be determined by at least one rotational speed sensor arranged in the drive path of the screw conveyor (this limitation is being interpreted as optional based on the language “can be”; the apparatus of modified Hunold is capable of accepting and utilizing such a rotational speed sensor).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hunold 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 (Eauclaire's “common electrical or other control device switch” that coordinates the additive auger motor speed with the screw extruder motor speed (see the abstract of Eauclaire), in combination with 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 provide an electronic control unit designed to control supply of the additional medium as a function of the conveying parameter).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Fig. 4A of EP 1 892 034, the abstract and Fig. 1 of US 2005/0063246, and Figs. 1-2 of US 6,013,701.
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