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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on January 9, 2026. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung et al. (KR20190021087A) in view of Hills (US 5,162,074).
With regard to claim 1, Kyoung discloses a distributing plate configured to distribute and discharge the a high-viscosity fluid, the distributing plate comprising: an upper surface that is flat (10a); a side surface having a diameter increasing downwardly from the upper surface (10b Fig. 1); a plurality of inner holes extending through the upper surface and arranged along a plurality of first imaginary concentric circles on the upper surface (12, Fig. 3); and a plurality of outer holes extending through the side surface and arranged along a plurality of second imaginary concentric circles on the side surface (12, Fig. 3).
Kyoung further discloses that the distributing plate configured to distribute and discharge polymer, except the polymer having a viscosity of 10,000 cP or more.
Hill teaches a distributing plate that is in the same field of endeavor as both the claimed invention and the invention of Kyoung. The distribution plate is configured to distribute molten polymers, wherein the polymers normally have viscosities of 10,000 cP (Col. 5 lines 1-10). Thus Hill demonstrates that distributing plates of the type disclosed by Kyoung are suitable for handling higher-viscosity polymer materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kyoung’s distributing plate to be used with higher-viscosity polymers as taught by Hill, since such modification would merely involve optimizing the operating conditions or material selection of Kyoung’s distribution plate to accommodate higher-viscosity fluids, as suggested by Hill, without requiring substantial structural redesign. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, given the similarities in structure and purpose between the devices.
Kyoung does not disclose that a ratio of an area of each inner hole to an area of each outer hole is 1.2 to 1.4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the area of each inner hole to the area of each outer hole of Kyoung by having a ratio 1.2 to 1.4 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In the instant case, changing the dimensions of each inner hole and each outer hole, achieves the result of controlling fluid flow characteristics such as discharging rates and volumes, and as such the area dimension is recognized in the art as a result effective variable. Further, a one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success at modifying the area of each inner hole and each outer hole of Kyoung as changes to orifice design, including dimensions, are well within the level of skill of the art. Finding the optimal maximum dimension would therefore be simply a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 2, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kyoung further discloses that each of the inner holes and each of the outer holes has an elliptical shape having a width and a length, a width of each of the inner holes is 10 mm to 45 mm and a length of each of the inner holes is 10 mm to 38 mm, and the a width of each of the outer holes is 10 mm to 30 mm and the a length of each of the outer holes is 10 mm to 40 mm (Para. [0008-0009 and 0029-0033]).
With regard to claim 3, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kyoung further discloses that the distributing plate has a truncated cone shape with an open lower surface (Fig. 4), except a height of the distributing plate in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface is 40 mm to 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the distributing plate in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of Kyoung to be 40 mm to 100mm, since changing the height of the distributing plate is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 4, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 3 above. Kyoung does not disclose that a diameter of the upper surface is 1040 mm to 1140 mm, and a diameter of the lower surface is 1700 mm to 1860 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the diameter of the upper surface to be 1040 mm to 1140 mm and the diameter of the lower surface to be 1700 mm to 1860 mm of Kyoung, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 5, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kyoung does not disclose that the plurality of first imaginary concentric circles is 8 circles, and the plurality of second imaginary concentric circles is 8 circles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plurality of first and second imaginary concentric circles to be 8 circles of Kyoung, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claims 6 and 7, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kyoung does not disclose that a sum of the a total number of the plurality of inner holes and the a total number of the plurality of outer holes is 1000 or more, wherein the total number of the plurality of inner holes is 294, and the total number of the plurality of outer holes is 714.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to modify the number of the plurality of inner holes to be 294, and the number of the plurality of outer holes to be 714 of Kyoung, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 8, the distributing plate of Kyoung as modified by Hill discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kyoung further discloses that a tube bundle (2) located below the distributing plate and including a plurality of tubes configured to receive the high-viscosity fluid discharged from the distributing plate (Fig. 1).
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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752