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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17-19, 25-26, 30-31, 34-36, 38, 40 ,42 ,44 ,46 ,50, 54-55 and 89 in the reply filed on February 17th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 97 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 17th, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The terms “first base level” and “second base level” (e.g. See claim 8) are understood to be structures of the intermediate vessel which comprise a bottom surface of the first and second intermediate volumes respectively. As shown in Fig. 15 and described in para. [0051] of the specification, the first base level is the bottom of the first intermediate volume and the second base level is the bottom of the second intermediate volume.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference character “1512” appears to be used for the same structure as reference character “1508” in Fig. 15A. Reference character “1512” is described as “exterior portions”, but appears to be pointing to the same interior portion as the reference character “1508” in Fig. 15A. It is recommended to point “1512” to exterior portions in Fig. 15A.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 44, 50 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124).
Regarding claim 1, Hӓuser discloses a method for inline resin mixing (thermosetting synthetic-resin material, Abstract) as outlined below:
PNG
media_image1.png
571
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hӓuser discloses the method comprises establishing a flow of a mixed resin comprising a first mixing component (such as epoxy compound, col. 1, lines 48-49) and a second mixing component (such as an amine hardener, col. 1., line 49); directing at least an initial portion of the mixed resin to a first intermediate volume (a compartment 3, such as compartment 3a).
Hӓuser discloses a second intermediate volume (such as compartment 3b) but does not explicitly state “subsequently directing a remainder of the mixed resin to a second intermediate volume”.
However, the device of Hӓuser would perform the claimed method step as part of normal operation because Hӓuser discloses detecting a flow rate (col. 5, lines 63-64) or level/volume using sensors (11 and 11’) in the intermediate volumes (compartment 3a, 3b, etc.) and filling the volumes in response to the sensor output which would meet the limitation during normal operation (for example: when compartments 3c and 3d are full and compartment 3a has transferred its contents to mold 2a, the valve 9 of compartment 3a would open, col. 6, lines 28-30, and a first portion of mixed resin would be fed to the first intermediate volume/compartment 3a and upon compartment 3b transferring its contents to mold 2b, it would subsequently be filled with a remaining portion of mixed resin in the same manner, col. 6, lines 28-30) or the device of Hӓuser could be operated such that a remainder is sent to the second intermediate volume (compartment 3b) upon detecting a low flow condition (col. 5, lines 63-64) in order to discard a potentially bad portion (a portion which may be prematurely setting, col. 6, lines 1-2, which may be discarded via valve 21b of the second intermediate volume/compartment 3b, col. 5, lines 60-64) and prevent it from entering the first intermediate compartment containing a good portion (compartment 3a).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser to include subsequently directing a remainder of the mixed resin to a second intermediate volume after a predetermined triggering event (indication of low volume, col. 6, lines 28-30, or flow rate, col. 5, line 63, using sensors 11 and 11’) relating to a continuing flow of the mixed resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to subsequently direct a remainder of the mixed resin to the second intermediate volume after a predetermined triggering event in order to operate a first mold (mold 2a) followed by a second (mold 2b) or to transfer a portion which may be bad (such as due to prematurely setting, col. 6, line 2) to the second intermediate volume (compartment 3b) to be discarded (via valve 21b).
Assuming, arguendo, that Hӓuser does not disclose subsequently directing a remainder of the mixed resin to a second intermediate volume; Park et al. discloses a method applicable to a resin process (plastic resin, para. [0011]) where intermediate volumes (accumulators 10 and 18, Fig. 7, analogous to Hӓuser’s compartments 3) are used to feed molds (molding units 12 and 20, Fig. 7) and Park et al. teaches directing an initial portion to a first intermediate volume (accumulator 10) and subsequently directing a remainder to a second intermediate volume (accumulator 18, para. [0067]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method includes subsequently directing a remainder of the mixed resin to a second intermediate volume.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternate between volumes in order to allow for consistent filling of the intermediate volumes or staggered operation of molds.
Regarding claim 44, Hӓuser discloses the method further comprises dispensing the mixed resin from the second intermediate volume (compartment 3b) to a next stage of processing (mold 2b, resin is dispensed from compartments 3a-3d to respective molds 2a-2d via line 17, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 50, Hӓuser discloses the method further comprises dispensing the mixed resin from the second intermediate volume (compartment 3b) to at least one resin molding tool (mold 2b).
Regarding claim 54, Hӓuser discloses the intermediate volumes operate independently (col. 3, lines 52-55) so that the method would include draining the mixed resin from the first intermediate volume after the mixed resin is directed to the second intermediate volume (the volume of compartment 3a would drain to mold 2a while valve 9, under control of the controller 18, col. 6, line 26, of compartment 3a is closed and valve 9 of compartment 3b is open).
Claims 4, 30-31, 36, 42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Mortimer et al. (US 2019202145).
Regarding claim 4, Hӓuser does not disclose wherein the predetermined triggering event indicates a ratio of the first mixing component to the second mixing component in the flow is within an acceptable tolerance of a predetermined threshold.
However, Mortimer et al. discloses an inline resin mixing process (resin infusion process, Abstract, having mixer 4, Fig. 1) and Mortimer et al. teaches using a detector (spectrometer) to determine the concentration of components (para. [0026]) and indicate a ratio of the first mixing component to the second mixing component (para. [0048]) and determine the flow is within an acceptable tolerance of a predetermined threshold (predefined tolerances, para. [0049]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the predetermined triggering event indicates a ratio of the first mixing component to the second mixing component in the flow is within an acceptable tolerance of a predetermined threshold.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to monitor a ratio such as to transition to a new ratio for filling a different mold (Hӓuser, mold 2a to mold 2b) or to reject an off-spec stream to a second intermediate volume (Hӓuser, compartment 3b) for removal (Hӓuser, via valve 21b, col. 5, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 30, insomuch as Hӓuser does not explicitly disclose monitoring a parameter associated with the flow of the mixed resin to obtain a measurement and comparing the measurement to a predetermined level; Mortimer et al. discloses an inline resin mixing process (resin infusion process, Abstract, having mixer 4, Fig. 1) and Mortimer et al. teaches using a detector (spectrometer) to obtain a measurement to monitor a parameter associated with the flow of the mixed resin (concentration of components, para. [0026] or a ratio, para. [0048]) and comparing the measurement to a predetermined threshold (predefined tolerances, para. [0049]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method further comprises monitoring a parameter associated with the flow of the mixed resin to obtain a measurement; comparing the measurement to a predetermined threshold associated with the predetermined triggering event; and changing the directing of the mixed resin from the first intermediate volume to the second intermediate volume after the measurement exceeds the predetermined threshold.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to monitor a concentration or ratio such as to transition to a new ratio for filling a different mold (Hӓuser, mold 2a to mold 2b) or to reject an off-spec stream to the second intermediate volume (Hӓuser, compartment 3b) for removal (Hӓuser, via valve 21b, col. 5, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 31, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 30 discloses wherein the measurement comprises at least one of a flow time measurement, a mixed resin viscosity measurement, a mixed resin flow measurement, a mixed resin volume measurement, a mixed resin weight measurement and a mixed resin concentration measurement (at least a concentration, Mortimer et al., para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 36, Hӓuser discloses sensors (sensors 11’ and 11”) may be used to measure the flow rate (col. 5, line 63) or the volume (maximum and minimum volumes, col. 4, lines 41-43, claim 4) and the measurement is based on a fluid level measurement (piston 16 position changes based on fluid level, Fig. 3).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein a volume measurement (Hӓuser, such as minimum or maximum amount as suggested by claim 4) is used to change the flow from a first intermediate volume (compartment 3a) to a second intermediate volume (compartment 3b) wherein the mixed resin volume measurement is based on a fluid level measurement for the first intermediate volume (Hӓuser, using sensors 11’ and 11”, Fig. 3).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a volume measurement to achieve the predictable result of ensuring that the intermediate volumes are filled to the desired level.
Regarding claim 42, the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 30 would further comprise comparing the measurement to a second predetermined threshold (concentration of components, para. [0026] or a ratio, para. [0048], having predefined tolerances, para. [0049]) associated with conclusion of the continuing flow of the mixed resin to the second intermediate volume (such as a return to normal concentration after an off-spec concentration or a change to a new concentration for a different mold, Hӓuser, such as mold 2a, 2c or 2d); after the measurement is more than the second predetermined threshold (Mortimer et al., predefined tolerances, para. [0049]), adjusting direction of the mixed resin from the second intermediate volume to the first intermediate volume such that a next flow of the mixed resin would be initially directed to the first intermediate volume (as discussed for claim 30 above, after directing the flow to the compartment 3b due to being off-spec, the flow would be redirected back to compartment 3a upon return to normal concentration or the flow could be directed back to compartment 3a upon transitioning to a different concentration for a different mold: mold 2a) and draining the mixed resin (Hӓuser, via lines 17) from the first intermediate volume (Hӓuser, col. 5, lines 46-48).
Regarding claim 46, Hӓuser does not expressly disclose an infusion tool.
However, Mortimer et al. further teaches dispensing mixed resin into an infusion tool (infusion mould, pars. [0001] and [0008]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method further comprises dispensing the mixed resin from the second intermediate volume (Hӓuser, compartment 3b) to at least one resin infusion tool (Mortimer et al., infusion molds, pars. [0001] and [0008]).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to dispense to an infusion tool in order to utilize the method for manufacture of fibre reinforced composites (Mortimer et al., para. [0001]).
Claims 6-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Terhardt (US 5529212) and Moreno et al. (US 20200357567).
Regarding claim 6, insomuch as Hӓuser does not teach a spout; Terhardt teaches an inline resin mixing process (col. 1, lines 10-11, mixing chamber 23, Fig. 1) and Terhardt teaches a first and second intermediate volume where a spout (shown below) is configured to initially direct the mixed resin to the first intermediate volume (a first mold 28, Fig. 1) and configured to subsequently direct the mixed resin to the second intermediate volume (a second mold 28, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
790
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method further comprises receiving the flow of the mixed resin at an inlet spout configured to initially direct the mixed resin to the first intermediate volume and configured to subsequently direct the mixed resin to the second intermediate volume.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the intermediate volumes and mold structure of Hӓuser with the intermediate volumes of Terhardt in order to allow for a process of loading molds under vacuum.
Assuming arguendo that the molds 28 of Terhardt are not intermediate volumes; Moreno et al. teaches a similar resin mixing process (such as epoxy resin, para. [0002], using mixing chamber 4, Fig. 2) and Moreno et al. teaches molds (mold 16) which are intermediate volumes in that they are in an intermediate position in the process (being subsequently feed to extruder 5, Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser in view of Terhardt wherein the molds comprise intermediate volumes in the process.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use molds as intermediate volumes in order to manufacture spacers, requiring intermediate molding, for use in high-voltage devices (Moreno et al., para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 6 disclose wherein an intermediate vessel (chamber 26) comprises the first intermediate volume (a first mold 28) and the second intermediate volume (a second mold 28).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose wherein the intermediate vessel further comprises a base level and an exterior wall extending from an exterior portion of the base level to an opening to the intermediate vessel (Terhardt, Fig. 2) as indicated below:
PNG
media_image3.png
295
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124), Terhardt (US 5529212) and Moreno et al. (US 20200357567) as applied to claim 17 above and in further view of Embring (US 2980248).
Regarding claim 18, the above-cited references for claim 17 do not disclose a partitioning wall.
However, Embring teaches an intermediate vessel (Fig. 5) having a first and second intermediate volumes and wherein the intermediate vessel further comprises a partitioning wall (shown below) extending from the base level toward the opening of the intermediate vessel to physically isolate the first intermediate volume from the second intermediate volume.
PNG
media_image4.png
480
983
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 teachings of the above cited references for claim 17 wherein the intermediate vessel is a mold having intermediate volumes such that the intermediate vessel further comprises a partitioning wall extending from the base level toward the opening of the intermediate vessel to physically isolate the first intermediate volume from the second intermediate volume.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a mold having partition walls in order to pour multiple volumes with a single mold structure for a more compact operation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124), Terhardt (US 5529212), Moreno et al. (US 20200357567) and Embring (US 2980248) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Clusserath (US 20130112315).
Regarding claim 19, in modifying Hӓuser with the teaching of Terhardt, Moreno et al. and Embring, the references are silent as to how the flow is controlled to the intermediate volumes.
However, there would need to be a flow control means, such as a flowmeter to actuate valves to prevent spillage between fillings of intermediate volumes and Clusserath discloses a device which is analogous art (filling machine, Abstract) at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of filling intermediate volumes (bottles 2) and Clusserath teaches that liquid is initially directed to the first intermediate volume (a first bottle 2) and subsequently directed to the second intermediate volume (a second bottle 2) in response to a predetermined triggering event (flow meter signal indicating a full bottle, pars. [0024], [0029], and [0035]-[0036]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method comprises moving at least one of the inlet spout and the intermediate vessel (the intermediate vessel, Embring, mold, Fig. 5) from a first position in which the mixed resin is directed to the first intermediate volume to a second position in which the mixed resin is directed to the second intermediate volume (Terhardt, Fig. 2, molds move within chamber 26 to position under the spout for dispensing) after the predetermined triggering event (Clusserath, flow meter signal indicating full, pars. [0024], [0029], and [0035]-[0036]).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to move the position of the intermediate vessel after a triggering event in order to ensure that resin is not spilled.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Milleman et al. (US 20210339096), Wagner et al. (US 5232960), and Warren (US 20190275538).
Regarding claim 26, Hӓuser does not disclose agitating, heating, maintaining temperature or insulation of the second intermediate volume.
However, Milleman et al. teaches a two-component thermoplastic resin process (para. [0115]) wherein the thermoplastic is pre-heated to a predetermined temperature (above the glass transition temperature) before molding (para. [0114]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the resin is pre-heated in the intermediate volumes (3a-3d) including the second intermediate volume (3b).
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to preheat in order to facilitate molding.
Hӓuser does not disclose agitating in the second intermediate volume. However, agitating would speed pre-heating and Wagner et al. teaches a thermosetting resin process having a vessel (dosing unit 7) downstream of a mixing tank (vessel 4, col. 8, lines 53-57) and which is shown to have a heating jacket and agitator (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
700
587
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method further comprises agitating the mixed resin in the second intermediate volume; heating the mixed resin in the second intermediate volume (to pre-heat before molding, Milleman et al., para. [0114]) to a predetermined temperature and maintaining the mixed resin in the second intermediate volume at the predetermined temperature (above the glass transition, Milleman et al., para. [0114]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to agitate, heat and maintain temperature in order to facilitate molding.
The above-cited references do not disclose insulating the intermediate volume.
However, Warren teaches a resin mixing process (para. [0004]) and teaches using an insulated (para. [0022]) heating vessel (vessel 12) to heat components to a predetermined temperature (target temperature, para. [0028]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the method includes insulating the mixed resin in the second intermediate volume to facilitate maintaining the predetermined temperature.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to insulate in order to increase the performance and energy efficiency (Warren, para. [0022]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) and Mortimer et al. (US 2019202145) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Lesieur (US 20080127717) and Seo et al. (attached translation of KR 101233280B1).
Regarding claim 34, Hӓuser is silent as to a viscometer.
However, Mortimer et al. further teaches measuring mixed resin viscosity (para. [0014], claim 8) for a given temperature (para. [0014]) by a viscometer (para. [0026]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the measurement comprises a mixed resin viscosity measurement.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a viscosity measurement (Mortimer et al., para. [0014]) such as to transition to a new viscosity for filling a different mold (Hӓuser, mold 2a to mold 2b) or to reject an off-spec stream to a second intermediate volume (Hӓuser, compartment 3b) for removal (Hӓuser, via valve 21b, col. 5, lines 60-65).
Insomuch as the above references do not expressly disclose measuring dynamic pressure and temperature by the viscometer; Seo et al. discloses a device (digital viscometer, Abstract) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of determining the viscosity of fluids and Seo et al. teaches the viscosity measurement is based on measurements of a dynamic fluid pressure (having two pressure sensors to measure differential pressure of a flow, para. [0005]) and a fluid temperature (temperature sensor, para. [0005]) by the viscometer.
Likewise, Lesieur discloses a device (viscometer, para. [0001], Fig. 1) which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of determining the viscosity of fluids and Lesieur discloses the viscosity measurement is based on measurements of a dynamic fluid pressure (pressure variation rate, para. [0001], which is measured, para. [0036]) and a fluid temperature (temperature is controlled at constant level by control system 114, at measured temperatures, para. [0064]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the mixed resin viscosity measurement is based on measurements of a dynamic mixed resin pressure and a mixed resin temperature by a viscometer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a viscometer that can account for different temperatures or change the temperature for the measurement and which may be utilized under different pressure conditions in a system where temperature and pressure fluctuates.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) and Mortimer et al. (US 2019202145) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Brubaker et al. (US 4625922).
Regarding claim 35, Hӓuser does not disclose the mixed resin flow measurement is based on measurements by ultrasonic sensors.
However, Mortimer et al. further teaches the use of flow meters (para. [0014]) which could be substituted or used in combination with the sensors of Hӓuser (col. 5, lines 63-64, col. 3, lines 3-12).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein a flow meter is used.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a flow meter (Mortimer et al., para. [0014]) such as to ensure reduced, increased or stopped flow prior to transition to a new mold (Hӓuser, mold 2a to mold 2b) or to reject an off-spec stream to the second intermediate volume (Hӓuser, compartment 3b) for removal (Hӓuser, via valve 21b, col. 5, lines 60-65) as which may be needed when the flow rate is too low (Hӓuser, col. 3, lines 3-12).
The above-cited references do not disclose a flow rate measurement (flow meter) is based on measurements by ultrasonic sensors.
However, Brubaker et al. discloses a method which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of determining flow rates of liquids (slurry, col. 3, lines 50-51) and Brubaker et al. teaches that the flow rate may be determined based on measurements by an ultrasonic sensor (col. 3, lines 50-51).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the mixed resin flow measurement is based on measurements by ultrasonic sensors as a flow meter.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to utilize an ultrasonic sensor to achieve the predictable result of measuring a flow rate.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) and Mortimer et al. (US 2019202145) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Duffy (US 20090198036).
Regarding claim 38, the above-cited references for claim 31 do not disclose obtaining a mixed resin weight measurement.
However, Duffy discloses a resin process (para. [0037]) and teaches using a weight measurement of a vessel (blender 1 and/or raw material containers, para. [0021]).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the measurement comprises a mixed resin weight measurement based on a mixed resin weight measurement for the first intermediate volume.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a weight measurement of a vessel such as an intermediate volume/compartment (Hӓuser, compartments 3a-3d) in order to determine or confirm that the vessel is filled with the desired amount of mixed resin.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӓuser (US 4307760) in view of Park et al. (US 20070052124) and Mortimer et al. (US 2019202145) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Hildreth (US 20090092001) and Vanell et al. (US 6267641).
Regarding claim 40, the above-cited references for claim 31 do not disclose a refractometer.
However, Hildreth et al. discloses a liquid mixing method (solution making, Abstract) and Hildreth teaches the concentration may be monitored (Abstract) using a refractometer (para. [0060]).
Likewise, Vanell et al. discloses a liquid mixing process (using dynamic mixing device 130) and Vanell et al. teaches a concentration measurement is based on a concentration measurement by a refractometer (col. 3, lines 65-67).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Hӓuser wherein the mixed resin concentration measurement is based on a concentration measurement by a refractometer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a refractometer to measure concentration to confirm the resin has the desired concentration.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 20200357567) in view of Schwenke et al. (US 6457299), Terhardt (US 5529212) and Clusserath (US 20130112315).
Regarding claim 55, Moreno et al. discloses a mixed resin (such as epoxy resin, para. [0002], Fig. 2) retention assembly for inline resin mixing (at mixing chamber 4, Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
761
1100
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Moreno et al. discloses an inlet spout (shown above) configured to receive a flow of a mixed resin (from mixing chamber 4) from a mixed resin supply subsystem, the mixed resin comprising a first mixing component (component A) and a second mixing component (component B) an intermediate vessel comprising (chamber 15) and a first intermediate volume (mold 16).
Moreno et al. does not expressly disclose the intermediate vessel includes a second intermediate volume.
However, Schwenke et al. discloses a device which is analogous art (apparatus for filling containers, Abstract) at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of filling intermediate volumes (containers) and Schwenke et al. discloses an intermediate vessel (processing chamber 12) including a first and second intermediate volume (two of the containers 1, Fig. 1) where the intermediate volumes are filled using a spout (element 19).
Further, Terhardt discloses a system for inline resin mixing (col. 1, lines 10-11, blender 23, Fig. 1) having an intermediate vessel (chamber 26) and Terhardt teaches the intermediate vessel includes a first and second intermediate volume (a first mold 28 and a second mold 28, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Moreno et al. wherein the intermediate vessel includes a second intermediate volume (a second container/mold 16); the first intermediate volume configured to hold at least an initial portion of the mixed resin, the second intermediate volume configured to hold a remainder of the mixed resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a second intermediate volume (a second container or mold) in order to fill multiple volumes within the intermediate vessel.
Presumably the above-cited references include a meter for dispensing controlled quantities of the liquid, but this is not explicitly stated.
However, Clusserath discloses a device which is analogous art (filling machine, Abstract) at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of filling intermediate volumes (bottles 2) and Clusserath teaches that liquid is initially directed to the first intermediate volume (a first bottle 2) and subsequently directed to the second intermediate volume (a second bottle 2) in response to a predetermined triggering event (flow meter signal indicating a full bottle, pars. [0024], [0029], and [0035]-[0036]) related to a continuing flow of the liquid.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Moreno et al. wherein the inlet spout (Schwenke et al., element 19) and the intermediate vessel (Schwenke et al., chamber 12, Moreno et al., chamber 15) are configured such that the mixed resin is initially directed to the first intermediate volume (Moreno et al., a first mold 16, Schwenke et al., a first container, Clusserath, a first bottle 2) and subsequently directed to the second intermediate volume (a second mold: Schwenke et al., a second container, Clusserath, a second bottle 2) in response to a predetermined triggering event (Clusserath, flow meter signal indicating a full intermediate volume, pars. [0024], [0029], and [0035]-[0036]) related to a continuing flow of the mixed resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a means for determining when the intermediate volumes are full, such as a flowmeter, in order to automate the filling of the intermediate volumes.
Claim 89 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreno et al. (US 20200357567) in view of Hӓuser (US 4307760), Wire et al. (US 20040099183) and Terhardt (US 5529212).
Regarding claim 89, Moreno et al. discloses a system (Fig. 2) for inline resin mixing (for example, epoxy resin, para. [0002], using mixing chamber 4, Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
862
1290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Moreno et al. discloses the system comprises a mixed resin supply subsystem comprising:
a first reservoir (shown above) configured to hold a volume of a first mixing component (component A) and a second reservoir (shown above) configured to hold a volume of a second mixing component (component B).
Moreno et al. does not explicitly disclose pumps and valves, but there would presumably be flow control components such as valves and pumps in the system of Moreno et al. and Hӓuser teaches a resin mixing system (thermosetting synthetic-resin material, Abstract) shown above for claim 1 and further teaches a first pump (pump 6) configured to draw the first mixing component from the first reservoir (chamber 4, Fig. 2) and a second pump (pump 6’) configured to draw the second mixing component from the second reservoir (chamber 5).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Moreno et al. wherein the system includes a first pump configured to draw the first mixing component from the first reservoir and
a second pump configured to draw the second mixing component from the second reservoir.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include pumps in order to achieve the predictable result of ensuring adequate flow from reservoirs.
Moreno et al. does not disclose a three-way valve.
However, Wire et al. discloses a system which is analogous art (sol-gel mixer, Abstract) at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of feeding components to a mixer (final mix 50) and Wire et al. discloses a three-way valve (valve 76) comprising a first inlet connection, a second inlet connection and an outlet connection, the three-way valve configured to receive the first mixing component from the first pump (pump 44) at the first inlet connection, configured to receive the second mixing component from the second pump (pump 74) at the second inlet connection and configured to establish a flow of a mixed liquid via the outlet connection in conjunction with the first and second pumps (Fig. 5) and having a plurality of first supply lines interconnecting the first reservoir (such as tank 37), the first pump (pump 44) and the first inlet connection of the three-way valve (as shown in Fig. 5, lines connect tank 37 to pump 44 and pump 44 to the three-way valve 76); a plurality of second supply lines interconnecting the second reservoir (organosilane supply 70), the second pump (pump 74) and the second inlet connection of the three-way valve (as shown in Fig. 5, lines connect tank 70 to pump 74 and pump 44 to the three-way valve 76); and at least one mixed liquid supply line connected to the outlet connection of the three-way valve (line between valve 76 and final mix 50).
Therefore, 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 teachings of Moreno et al. wherein the system includes a three-way valve comprising a first inlet connection, a second inlet connection and an outlet connection, the three-way valve configured to receive the first mixing component from the first pump at the first inlet connection, configured to receive the second mixing component from the second pump at the second inlet connection and configured to establish a flow of a mixed resin via the outlet connection in conjunction with the first and second pumps drawing the first and second mixing components from the first and second reservoirs; a plurality of first supply lines interconnecting the first reservoir, the first pump and the first inlet connection of the three-way valve; a plurality of second supply lines interconnecting the second reservoir, the second pump and the second inlet connection of the three-way valve; and at least one mixed resin supply line connected to the outlet connection of the three-way valve.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a three-way valve and associated lines in order to control the flow of liquid to the mixing chamber (Wire et al., final mix 50, Moreno et al., chamber 4) and in using a three-way valve, components could pre-mix in the feed line prior to entering the mixing chamber to assist in mixing.
The combined teaching of the above-cited references disclose a mixed resin retention assembly (Moreno et al., Fig. 2) comprising: an inlet spout (Moreno et al., Fig. 2, shown above) connected to the at least one mixed resin supply line (Wire et al., line between valve 76 and final mix 50, connected via Moreno et al., chamber 4), the inlet spout configured to receive the flow of the mixed resin via the at least one mixed resin supply line and an intermediate vessel (Moreno et al., chamber 15) comprising a first intermediate volume (mold 16) the first intermediate volume configured to hold at least an initial portion of the mixed resin (Fig. 2).
Moreno et al. does not expressly disclose the intermediate vessel includes a second intermediate volume.
However, Terhardt discloses a system for inline resin mixing (col. 1, lines 10-11, blender 23, Fig. 1) having an intermediate vessel (chamber 26) and Terhardt teaches the intermediate vessel includes a first and second intermediate volume (a first mold 28 and a second mold 28, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Moreno et al. wherein the intermediate vessel includes a second intermediate volume (a second container/mold 16); the first intermediate volume configured to hold at least an initial portion of the mixed resin, the second intermediate volume configured to hold a remainder of the mixed resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a second intermediate volume (a second container or mold) in order to fill multiple volumes within the intermediate vessel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 13-15 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses methods for resin mixing comprising establishing a flow of a mixed resin comprising first and second components and directing a first portion to a first intermediate volume and subsequently directing a second portion to a second intermediate volume. The prior art of record discloses resin mixing methods using an intermediate vessel.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for resin mixing comprising establishing a flow of a mixed resin comprising first and second components and directing a first portion to a first intermediate volume of an intermediate vessel and subsequently directing a second portion to a second intermediate volume of the intermediate vessel and where the intermediate vessel has a first base level (e.g. a first bottom surface) and a second base level (e.g. a second bottom surface) with a connecting wall between an interior portion of the first base level and an interior portion of the second base level and an exterior wall extending from an exterior portion of the first base level and an exterior portion of the second base level to an opening to the intermediate vessel and wherein the first intermediate volume is defined from the first base level upward to the second base level, the second intermediate volume defined from the second base level upward toward the opening.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for resin mixing comprising establishing a flow of a mixed resin comprising first and second components and directing a first portion to a first intermediate volume of an intermediate vessel and subsequently directing a second portion to a second intermediate volume of the intermediate vessel and where the intermediate vessel further comprises a base level and an exterior wall extending from an exterior portion of the base level to an opening to the intermediate vessel and where the intermediate vessel further comprises an outlet disposed along the exterior wall for dispensing mixed resin from the second intermediate volume, the outlet disposed above the first intermediate volume such that the mixed resin in the first intermediate volume is not dispensed through the outlet when the mixed resin is dispensed from the second intermediate volume, the first intermediate volume defined from the base level upward to the outlet, the second intermediate volume defined from the first intermediate volume upward toward the opening.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Perkins et al. (20070140051) disclose an inline mixing method for thermoset compositions where a mixture if feed to intermediate volumes (cartridges).
Ball (US 4750351) discloses an inline viscometer using differential pressure measurements.
Hӓuser (US 5551486) discloses controlling flow between an intermediate vessel (vessel 28) and a mold (mold 2) using a control valve (30) whose operation is based off of a flow sensor (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774