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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Zhang does not disclose the claimed special technical feature as now amended to include a mixing chamber having a lower wall oriented at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the ground. This is not found persuasive because as explained below Zhang discloses all the limitations of the technical feature, including a mixing chamber having a lower wall oriented at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the ground (figure 3, #126), and therefore the technical feature is not a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Zhang as explained in the 102 rejection of claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/1/2026.
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.
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:
separation mechanism in claims 3 and 7;
blowback device in claim 5.
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 § 102
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 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) 1-4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN206484801U) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses an homogenizer for homogenously blending a feedstock (abstract; figures 1-3), comprising:
a separator configured to receive a material feed in the form of a fluid medium carrying a composite feedstock, and to separate the composite feedstock from the fluid medium (#2 with suction chamber 21 and filter screen 214; [0039] (air is considered a fluid medium) (“configured to receive a material feed in the form of a fluid medium carrying a composite feedstock, and to separate the composite feedstock from the fluid medium” is directed to a manner of operating disclosed separator, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”);
an agitator configured to receive the separated composite feedstock from the separator, and to mix the composite feedstock to yield the homogenously blended feedstock (stirring device 3 and stirring chamber 12; [0038]-[0040]) (“configured to receive the separated composite feedstock from the separator, and to mix the composite feedstock to yield the homogenously blended feedstock” is directed to a manner of operating disclosed separator, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”),
the agitator comprising a mixing chamber having a lower wall oriented at a non-perpendicular angle relative to the ground (see figure 3, mixing chamber 12 with partition plate 126 being a horizontal (i.e. non-perpendicular angle) wall with respect to the ground); and
a hopper configured to receive a homogenously blended feedstock from the agitator, and to hold the homogenously blended feedstock for release to either a processing machine or a storage container (funnel 13; [0038] (“configured to receive a homogenously blended feedstock from the agitator, and to hold the homogenously blended feedstock for release to either a processing machine or a storage container” is directed to a manner of operating disclosed separator, and it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” As such, the processing machine and/or storage container are intended uses of the hopper and are not positively recited structural limitations),
wherein the separator, agitator and hopper are integrated within a common housing (see figures 1-3 with common wall/housing encompassing #2, 3, 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the separator comprises a reception chamber (suction chamber 21; [0039]) having a vacuum outlet (suction pipe 212; [0039]) and a feed inlet (suction pipe 211; [0039]), the vacuum outlet being configured to communicate with a vacuum device for generation of a negative vacuum pressure within the reception chamber ([0039] suction pipe 212 is connected to a vacuum pump), and the feed inlet being configured to communicate with a feed supply for delivery of a material feed into the reception chamber under force of a negative pressure generated through the vacuum outlet (suction pipe 211; [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the separator comprises a separation mechanism within the reception chamber, the separation mechanism being positioned within a fluid flow path between the feed inlet and the vacuum outlet and configured to separate a material feed received through the feed inlet into substantially separate components of a fluid medium and a composite feedstock (figure 3, filter 214; [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the separation mechanism is a filter adapted to permit passage of a fluid medium therethrough while blocking passage of a composite feedstock therethrough (figure 3, filter 214; [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. discloses wherein an unobstructed opening is provided in a bottom region of the reception chamber for passage of composite feedstock from the separator to the agitator (figure 2, feed port 112; see figure 3, bottom of chamber 21; [0039]), and the separation mechanism is positioned in an upper region of the reception chamber such that composite feedstock separated from a fluid medium in a material feed falls by gravity to the bottom region of the separator, through the unobstructed opening, and into the agitator (figure 3, filter 214; [0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the mixing chamber comprises a mixing mechanism for mixing a composite feedstock to yield a homogenously blended feedstock, the mixing mechanism comprising at least one of: a stirrer; a screw; an auger; a shaker; and a rotating drum (figure 3, stirring device 3 with stirring blade 35; [0040]).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN206484801U) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Maguire (WO2017/136074A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Zhang et al. discloses controlling the vacuum pump to reduce the air pressure to eject the particles from the filter by letting them fall by gravity ([0039]), Zhang et al. does not explicitly disclose a blowback device for achieving this.
Maguire teaches another separator for granular plastic resin material (figure 9; [0004]-[0022]), wherein the separator comprises a blowback device configured to generate a blowback fluid flow through the filter for ejecting particles that have attached to the filter during separation of a composite feedstock from a fluid medium (figure 9, blowback device 60; [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the blowback device of Maguire in the separator of Zhang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach separators for granular plastic resin material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a blowback device because it keeps the filter clean, blows the dust from the filter to the bottom of the housing, and ensure no dust or fine are carried with the air stream that passes through the filter on to the vacuum pump (Maguire [0059]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN206484801U) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Avery, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,159,941).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however, does not explicitly disclose the separation mechanism is a deflector baffle.
Avery, Jr. teaches another separator wherein the separation mechanism is a deflector baffle sized and dimensioned to obstruct and deflect a flow of material feed through the reception chamber, such that there is induced a turbulent flow in the material feed that separates the composite feedstock from the fluid medium (abstract; baffles 24 and 28; column 1, lines 21-29; columns 3-4, lines 61-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the separation mechanism of Zhang et al. to be a deflector baffle as taught by Avery, Jr. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach separators for granular plastic material (abstract; column 1, lines 33-40). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the separation mechanism to be a deflector baffle because it is a simple design, inexpensive to manufacture and maintain and can operate at relatively high rates (Avery, Jr. column 1, lines 36-40; column 3, lines 61-66).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN206484801U) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Weidemann (DE3803418C2) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation).
Regarding claims 9-11, Zhang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above; however does not explicitly disclose a release gate and an ejection device.
Weidemann teaches another agitator for mixing and dispensing resin ([0001]) wherein the agitator/mixing chamber comprises a release gate provided at a lower region of the mixing chamber for releasing feedstock to the hopper (figure 1, piston 31, valve 33, in lower region of mixing chamber 12; [0005]; [0013]; [0019]; [0021]; [0032]; [0037]) and the angled wall of the mixing chamber is configured to urge feedstock within the mixing chamber toward the release gate under force of gravity (figures 1-3, bottom angled wall of chamber 12); and an ejection device configured to urge feedstock through the release gate (figure 2, screw conveyor 71; [0037]); and wherein the lower wall of the mixing chamber is oriented at an angle between about 15° to about 45° (figures 1-3, bottom angled wall of chamber 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the release gate and ejection device of Weidemann in the agitator of Zhang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach processors and mixers for resin material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a release gate and ejection device because it allows a metered control of the amount of material dispensed from the container for accurate mixing ratio and permits continuous flow and operation of the material and processor (Weidemann [0013]; [0022])
While, Zhang et al. does not disclose the specific shape of the mixing chamber to have a lower wall oriented at an angle between about 15° to about 45°, as taught by Weidemann in order to ensure the proper flow of material out of the container so the material does not stick to the sides of the walls, the modification to the shape of the mixing chamber would involve a mere change in configuration of shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. as modified by Weidemann further discloses wherein the mixing chamber comprises a lower wall that is oriented at an angle relative to ground, the angle being between about 20° and about 0° (Zhang et al. see figure 3, mixing chamber 12 with partition plate 126 being a horizontal (i.e. 0 degree angle) wall with respect to the ground; Weidemann reference #12 bottom wall).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN206484801U) (with paragraph numbers referring to machine translation) in view of Maguire et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0264684) (hereinafter “Maguire ‘684).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Zhang et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While Zhang et al. discloses the hopper comprises a storage chamber (figure 1, chamber 5; [0038]); Zhang et al. fails to explicitly disclose a batch sensor within the storage chamber.
Maguire ‘684 teaches another device for drying for resin material (abstract) wherein the hopper comprises a storage chamber (hopper 12) and a batch sensor within the storage chamber (material level sensor 42 in hopper 12; [0091]), the batch sensor being configured to generate signals informing on the presence of a predetermined quantity of feedstock within the storage chamber; and the batch sensor comprises at least one of: a volumetric sensor; a height sensor; and a weight sensor (material level sensor 42 in hopper 12; [0091]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the batch sensor of Maguire ‘684 in the storage chamber of Zhang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach dryers for granular resin material. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a batch sensor comprising a volumetric sensor, height sensor or weight sensor in the hopper storage chamber because it ensures enough material is available for operation and relays information about more material being needed (Maguire ‘684 [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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 X 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights