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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/18/23. These drawings are accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the term “capable of” recited in line 19, is not a positive limitation and thereby renders the claim indefinite. Applicant might overcome the rejection by substituting the term with -configured to--. Clarification and correction are required.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire (AU 4330700-A corresponding to WO 00/59708)) in view of Shimizu (JP 2009036741).
Regarding claim 1, Maguire is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of claim 1, and discloses (paragraphs [0048] - [0074]; figures 1, 2; claim 1; figure 3) a gravimetric metering device (1 0A) which is provided to add an additive material to a polymer material, comprising:
a hopper (12) which can contain the additive material,
a supply member (112A) which is provided downstream of the hopper (12) in order to receive the additive material which is discharged from the hopper (12) and to transport it towards a discharge opening which is connected to the polymer material (figure 1),
a first weighing element (32) which is associated at least with the hopper (12) and which is provided to detect the weight of the additive material which is discharged from the gravimetric metering device within a first maximum weighing range,
a second weighing element (32) which is associated at least with the hopper
and which is provided to detect the weight of the additive material which is discharged from the gravimetric metering device within a second maximum weighing range (" The gravimetric blender illustrated in detail in Figure 2 has two load cells 32. Larger capacity gravimetric blenders are desirably provided with two load cells as illustrated "), The subject-matter of claim 1 therefore differs from this known gravimetric metering device of D1 in that the first maximum weighing range is different from the second maximum weighing range and is therefore new. The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as how to make the device of Maguire more flexible. The solution proposed in claim 1 of the present application cannot be considered as involving an inventive step for the following reasons this feature has already been employed for the same purpose in a similar device (see JP 2009036741, paragraph [0034]; figure 1; paragraphs [0047] - [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Maguire the feature of Shimizu because the corresponding effect to a gravimetric metering device would achieve the same result in a reliable and efficient manner and thereby, making the above combination more effective.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not contain any features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which they refer, meet the requirements of the PCT in respect of inventive step.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see Maguire ("Microprocessor 34A then compares the determined amount of the extruded product desired to be produced to the numerically accumulated weight of batches of material which had been supplied successively by gravimetric blender 10A to extruder screw 12A.Microprocessor 34A then directly adjusts speed of drive motor 114A ").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maguire (WO 00/59708) in view of Shimizu (JP 2009036741) and further in view of Brandenburg (US Patent 4,582,454).
Regarding claim 4, having weighing metering device next to each other and sensing the same load is a trivial design choice (see D4, "Each load cell unit 40 consists of two load cells 40a,40b arranged to carry the load of the tank in series, that is to say the two load cells 40a,40b should, if operating correctly, sense the same weight.")
Regarding claim 5, see (paragraph [0053]) of Shimizu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUES M SAINT SURIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Frid (Flex) 10:00 to 7:00.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at 571 272 4107. 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.
/JACQUES M SAINT SURIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855