DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Application Transfer
The present application has been transferred to Examiner Atul P. Khare
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 08 September 2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least eight (8) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Election/Restrictions
The election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 29 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction between Groups I-II should be withdrawn due to an alleged combination-subcombination relationship therebetween (Rem. 2-4). It is noted, however, that the combination-subcombination relationship between groups of inventions pertains to national applications filed under 35 U.S.C 111(a) as opposed to unity of invention as applicable to the instant application which entered the National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 (MPEP § 801). Since there is no argument of record contesting the lack of the same or corresponding special technical feature set forth at Page 4 of the Office action issued 27 October 2025, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final, thereby leaving claims 7-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are: the claim 1 first connecting piece, distribution unit, and second connecting piece, in addition to the claim 2 measuring device(s).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations in fact recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 1 of claim 1, “Distribution device” should be changed, for example, to “A distribution device”, and this corresponding recitation in dependent claims 2-6 should be changed, for example, to “The distribution device”.
Also at line 1 of claim 1, “the distribution device” should be added after the comma.
The dash “-” beginning each of lines 2, 4, and 5 of claim 1 should be deleted.
The term “an” ending line 2 of claim 1 should be changed to “the”.
After the comma ending line 4 of claim 1, “and” should be added.
The recitation of “each conduit” extending from lines 5-6 of claim 1, in the last line of claim 1, and at line 2 of claim 4 should each be changed, for example, to “each of the at last two conduits”.
At line 3 of claim 2, “the product flow” should be changed, for example, to “a flow of product”.
At line 3 of claim 4, “the” prior to “interior” should be changed to “an”.
At line 2 of claim 6, “wherein it further comprises” should be changed, for example, to “further comprising”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
The claim 1 line 6-7 recitation of each conduit having a second connecting piece “for connection to a cooling nozzle, at its end remote from the distribution unit”, is confusing. In particular, it is unclear exactly what is for connected to the cooling nozzle, including whether this refers to the second connecting piece itself being for connecting to the cooling nozzle or for the second connecting piece being “for connection” of some other claimed or unclaimed component to the cooling nozzle. Further, it is unclear, since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, exactly what previously recited component is being referenced by the term “its”, and as a result exactly what component end is being recited as remote from the distribution unit.
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, claim 2 recites “a measuring device” as a broad recitation, and the claim also recites “preferably” a flow meter as a narrower statement of the limitation.
Claim 2 also recites “measuring devices” as another broad recitation, in addition to those “preferably” selected from the group consisting of flow meters and pressure sensors as another, narrower statement.
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features 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 claim.
The claim 2 line 3 recitation of “the product flow” lacks antecedent basis, as no such product, or flow thereof, is recited previously. See objection (g) above for a suggested correction.
The claim 2 line 3-4 reference back to “the measuring devices” is confusing, in particular since both a measuring device (singular) and measuring devices (plural) are recited at line 2. It is unclear whether this line 3-4 recitation intends to further limit strictly to the multiple line 2 devices.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the “two conduits” of claim 3 relate back to the “at least two conduits” of claim 1, and if so then exactly what further limitation is provided thereby, in particular due to two conduits already being provided by the claim 1 recitation of “at least two” of such conduits.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 4 exactly which of the at least two conduits is being referenced by the recitation of the temperature-control device surrounding the interior space of “the conduit”, in particular whether only a single of the at least two conduits is being referenced, or whether this recitation intends to refer back to each of the at least two conduits, whereby the temperature control device of each of the at least two conduits surrounds an interior space thereof.
Also in claim 4, the recitation of “serving as a product conduit, in a sheath-like manner” is confusing. Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear which previously recited component is being referenced.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, in particular due the two conduits of claim 3 already being presumably provided by the claim 1 recitation of “at least two” of such conduits.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required, for example by cancelation or amendment to place the claim in proper dependent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (US 5,198,261).
As to claim 1, Sasaki teaches a fig. 2-3 distribution device for an extruder, which comprises what may be construed as the claimed first connecting piece (see the boundary of the fig. 2-3 interface between extruder outlet 41 and branch tubes 61,62, and/or see the coupling set forth in the corresponding description of these figures). The distribution device further comprises a distribution unit as one or more of branch tubes 61,62 and/or as the depicted connection thereof to outlet 41, in addition to conduits 81,91 a temperature control device 8,9,82-83,92-93. It is noted that the claimed cooling nozzle is not actively recited as a structural component of the statutory distribution device being claimed, and in turn need not be disclosed by Sasaki for anticipation of claim 1. It is further noted that the above-cited conduits 81,91 comprise at least some sort of outlet or end face, such as that depicted in figs. 2-3, which may be construed as or as having a second connecting piece based on the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
Sasaki further discloses the claim 3 use of two conduits, and the claim 4 cylindrical nature and surrounding thereof by the temperature control device, with the temperature-control device comprising the claim 6 heat exchanger with channels configured in the manner claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Vermeerbergen (US 3,819,777).
Sasaki discloses provision of stable supply and flow of material (11:26-28) but is not believed to specify use of the claim 2 measuring device(s). However, Vermeerbergen similarly discloses a distribution device for an extruder, whereby measuring devices 9,10 are provided, including for example to facilitate temperature control (see at least 2:40-46, in addition to the remaining corresponding disclosure of figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Vermeerbergen into Sasaki as providing such measuring devices which would have been similarly useful not only for facilitating Sasaki’s temperature control in conduits 81,91, but also for facilitating Sasaki’s above-cited provision of stable supply and flow of material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable either over Sasaki alone as applied to at least claim 1 above, or in the alternative over Sasaki in view of Wende (DE 202005005881, machine translation cited herein).
Sasaki in the above-cited fig. 2-3 embodiment(s) is not believed to specify the claim 5 curved pipe portion at a remote end from the distribution unit. However, it is noted that curved pipe portions are disclosed elsewhere in each of the fig. 2-3 embodiments, with the fig. 5 embodiment additionally disclosing a curved pipe portion. With both curved and straight pipe portions being disclosed, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to reach the claim 5 use of a curved pipe portion through routine experimentation or otherwise based for example on impact on material flow and/or temperature, and/or based on what layout of upstream and/or downstream equipment is optimal.
Additionally/alternatively, Wende is recognized for disclosing various such curved pipe portions for branching from a single conduit into multiple sub-conduit outlets (see at least figs. 1-3 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Wende into Sasaki as providing such curved pipe portions additionally to Sasaki’s conduit outlet(s) for similarly providing the ability to divide and further distribute material flow.
Rejection 2-5
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over a number of additional references of record or hereby added to the record which likewise anticipate, or render obvious, one or more of the pending claims. For example:
JP 05328958, JP 2628220, and US 2005/0048178 are believed to anticipate at least claim 1 for the same or similar reasons set forth for the similar disclosure by Sasaki under Rejection 1 above. See at least the disclosed figure embodiment(s) of these references and their corresponding description.
US 3,819,777 is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 in view of disclosure of a distribution device comprising connecting pieces, a distribution unit, conduits, and a temperature-control device corresponding to those claimed, in addition to cooling unit 15/16. See at least the fig. 1-2 embodiment(s) and their corresponding description.
These references should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742