. 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 7/13/26 has been entered. Claims 1-14 and 16-22 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 7/13/26 with exceptions noted below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that 112f should not be invoked by “force producing mechanism” stating that means does not occur in the application, mechanism is not always a nonce term, and because it is used in other patents it is understood to broadly identify structure performing the described function.
Examiner asserts that means not being included in the application does not preclude 112f from being invoked. Applicant admits that mechanism is sometimes a nonce term which corresponds with the guidance in the MPEP. Examiner asserts that of the three patents cited one does not include the language force producing mechanism (11334164), two use the term in relation to a crank mechanism which is not found in the present application (11524205 and 11135470) in which both of these applications are very similar to the same Inventor. It is unclear how this is evidence that 112f should not be invoked and the decision is unchanged.
Applicant asserts that Brooks has a charging box and the claimed invention does not.
This does not change whether or not Brooks reads on the claimed subject matter.
Applicant asserts Brooks does not disclose a doorway to a volatizing chamber.
Examiner asserts that the invention is a push gate. The volatizing chamber is part of the furnace. It is unclear how part of the furnace is part of the push gate. A 112b has been placed on this claim limitation. The preamble would need to be changed to include the furnace to positively recite this limitation.
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:
A force-producing mechanism operatively associated with the plunger, the force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying the mechanical force to the plunger to controllably urge the plunger through the door plate opening. in claims 5 and 17. The nonce term mechanism is modified by functional language “force” and “a mechanical force and applying the mechanical force to the plunger to controllably urge the plunger through the door plate opening”. This will be interpreted as a hydraulic pump or any variety of force producing mechanisms per Paragraph 0060.
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.
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.
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 8 and 19 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.
Claims 8 and 19 recite “the volatizing chamber has a first process subzone adjacent the doorway and a second process subzone adjacent the melt chamber such that when the door plate is positioned against the furnace doorway”. It is unclear if the structure is limited to the pushgate or includes structure outside of the pushgate. For examination purposes Examiner will consider that the furnace structure is outside of the scope of the push gate and will be considered intended use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB719364 to Brooke (Brooke).
Regarding claim 21, Brooke teaches a door plate (plate on the left side of 10, Figures 1-5) configured to at least partially close the furnace doorway when positioned against furnace doorway (shown in Figure 2 and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can), and having a plunger opening extending therethrough (shown in Figures 1-4 with rod 19 passing through); a plunger extending through the plunger opening (19, Figures 1-4), the plunger having a first end and a second end (shown in Figures 1-4), and being reciprocable relative to the door plate between an extended position and a retracted position (shown in Figures 2-4); and a scoop coupled to the first end of the plunger and sized and configured to be received within the volatilizing chamber (10, Figures 2-4), so that when the door plate is positioned to at least partially close the furnace doorway, extension of the plunger extends the scoop from a retracted position adjacent the door plate to an extended position in the volatilizing chamber, and retraction of the plunger retracts the scoop from an extended position in the volatilizing chamber to a retracted position adjacent the door plate (extension and retraction shown in Figures 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Brooke teaches wherein the plunger extending through the door plate, fits snugly into the plunger opening, and at least in part seals the plunger opening (Figures 1-4 show the passage through the opening which at least partly seals the opening).
Regarding claim 4, Brooke teaches wherein the plunger comprises a shaft having a substantially uniform portion that extends through the plunger opening (shown in Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Brooke teaches a force-producing mechanism operatively associated with the plunger, the force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying the mechanical force to the plunger to controllably urge the plunger through the plunger opening (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, Brooke teaches wherein the force-producing mechanism comprises one of a hydraulic drive, a gaseous pressure drive and a mechanical drive (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Brooke teaches the volatizing chamber has a first process subzone adjacent the doorway and a second process subzone adjacent the melt chamber such that when the door plate is positioned against the furnace doorway, the retracted position corresponds to a first location in the volatizing chamber first process subzone, and the extended position corresponds to a second location in the volatizing chamber second process subzone (shown in Figures 1-4, and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can. Additionally, it is noted that claims directed toward the furnace structure are not part of the pushgate and this is considered intended use).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 2714966 to Taylor et al. (Taylor).
Regarding claim 3, Brooke is silent on a seal positioned in the plunger opening, the plunger extending through the seal, the seal sealing at least in part the plunger opening.
Taylor teaches a seal for a piston passing through a plate (unlabeled in Figures 1 and 2 which show seals round piston 20). 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 Brooke with the teachings of Taylor to provide a seal positioned in the plunger opening, the plunger extending through the seal, the seal sealing at least in part the plunger opening. Doing so would avoid locking or wedging of movable parts and provide structure already likely present in Brooke as Brooke would reasonably not have only a piston and a hole without additional structure in the shown orientation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. PGPUB 20100178627 to Dover et al. (Dover).
Regarding claim 7, Brooke teaches control over a movement from a first to second position (Figures 1-4 and Page 2 lines 66-95) which would appear to require memory but to expedite prosecution the below is provided.
Booke is silent on a computer control system operatively associated with the force-producing mechanism, the computer control system having a memory unit, the memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, the computer code instructing the force-producing mechanism to control the plunger to move the scoop between the retracted and extended positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with the process flow.
Dover teaches a PLC to control movement the of a stopper and spoon (Paragraph 0035). This is interpreted to have memory and because Brooke teaches the positions and Dover teaches the control system with memory the claim is taught. 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 Brooke with the teachings of Dover to provide a computer control system operatively associated with the force-producing mechanism, the computer control system having a memory unit, the memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, the computer code instructing the force-producing mechanism to control the plunger to move the scoop between the retracted and extended positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with the process flow. Doing so would be simply automating a manual process or allow the device to operate with limited human interaction.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 4984952 to Reuter (Reuter).
Regarding claim 9, Brooke is silent on a fastener, the fastener releasably securing the door plate to the furnace doorway.
Reuter teaches a fastener, the fastener releasably securing the door plate to the furnace doorway (Figure 3 shows the device connected by a flange which is a fastener and in its normal use would use screws or bolts). 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 Brooke with the teachings of Reuter to provide a fastener, the fastener releasably securing the door plate to the furnace doorway. Doing so would ensure the device would not move and be damaged by the movement while in one stage of operation.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Brooke teaches wherein the fastener comprises one of a rotating lock, a lock-pin, a latch, a hook, a clamp and a screw (Figure 3 of Reuter shows the device connected by a flange which is a fastener and in its normal use would use screws or bolts
Claim(s) 11-12, 16-17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 1204252 to Cruikshank (Cruikshank).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Brooke is silent a carriage, the carriage having a proximal end and a distal end, the carriage supporting at least in part the plunger, the plunger first end being oriented proximate the carriage proximal end, the carriage being movable from a first position in which the door plate is proximate the furnace doorway to a second position in which the door plate is not proximate the furnace doorway.
Cruikshank teaches a carriage (device below and above 22, Figure 1), the carriage having a proximal end and a distal end (shown in Figure 1), the carriage supporting at least in part the plunger, the plunger first end being oriented proximate the carriage proximal end, the carriage being movable from a first position in which the door plate is proximate the furnace doorway to a second position in which the door plate is not proximate the furnace doorway (carriage can move the entire device as claimed). 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 Brooke with the teachings of Cruikshank to provide a carriage, the carriage having a proximal end and a distal end, the carriage supporting at least in part the plunger, the plunger first end being oriented proximate the carriage proximal end, the carriage being movable from a first position in which the door plate is proximate the furnace doorway to a second position in which the door plate is not proximate the furnace doorway. Doing so would allow the device to be moved in and out of place as desired.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the modified device of Brooke teaches wherein the carriage comprises a glide, the door plate being attached to the glide, the glide moving the door plate between a forward position and a rearward position in the carriage (35 and 36 are rails and wheels which are interpreted as a glide, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Brooke teaches a force-producing mechanism operatively associated with the plunger, the force-producing mechanism producing a mechanical force and applying the mechanical force to the plunger to controllably urge the plunger through the plunger opening (20, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 19, Brooke teaches the volatizing chamber has a first process subzone adjacent the doorway and a second process subzone adjacent the melt chamber such that when the door plate is positioned against the furnace doorway, the scoop first position corresponds to a first location in the volatizing chamber first process subzone, and the scoop second position corresponds to a second location in the volatizing chamber second process subzone (shown in Figures 1-4, and the device is a push gate and therefore the device only needs to be able to interact with the furnace in the claimed manner which it can. Additionally, it is noted that claims directed toward the furnace structure are not part of the pushgate and this is considered intended use).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of U.S. Patent 1273141 to Brosius (Brosius).
Regarding claim 13, Brooke is silent a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door.
Brosius teaches a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door (Page 2 lines 27-49 disclose a structure lifting the device). 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 Brooke with the teachings of Brosius to provide a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door. Doing so would allow the height of the unit to be adjusted and allow the device to be used on different units.
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Brooke teaches a counterweight, the counterweight positioned opposite the plunger first end, the counterweight having a weight, the weight being sufficient to preclude the push gate proximal end from tipping downward when the plunger is extended (41, Figure 1 of Brosius).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of Cruikshank and Dover.
Regarding claim 18, Brooke teaches control over a movement from a first to second position (Figures 1-4 and Page 2 lines 66-95) which would appear to require memory but to expedite prosecution the below is provided.
Booke is silent on a computer control system operatively associated with the force-producing mechanism, the computer control system having a memory unit, the memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, the computer code instructing the force-producing mechanism to control the plunger to move the scoop between the first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with the process flow.
Dover teaches a PLC to control movement the of a stopper and spoon (Paragraph 0035). This is interpreted to have memory and because Brooke teaches the positions and Dover teaches the control system with memory the claim is taught. 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 Brooke with the teachings of Dover to provide a computer control system operatively associated with the force-producing mechanism, the computer control system having a memory unit, the memory unit storing a user programmable computer code for a desired process flow, the computer code instructing the force-producing mechanism to control the plunger to move the scoop between the first and second positions at one or more predetermined times in accordance with the process flow. Doing so would be simply automating a manual process or allow the device to operate with limited human interaction.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooke in view of Cruikshank and Brosius.
Regarding claim 20, Brooke is silent a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door.
Brosius teaches a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door (Page 2 lines 27-49 disclose a structure lifting the device). 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 Brooke with the teachings of Brosius to provide a lift, the lift controllably raising and lowering the door plate to align with the furnace door. Doing so would allow the height of the unit to be adjusted and allow the device to be used on different units.
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights