DETAILED ACTION
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, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomo (JP07016834 cited in the IDS mailed 1/13/2025 along with the machine translation provided with the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, a method for evaluating a kneading state in a kneader (see figure 2, page 2 of machine translation “Constitution” teaches measuring the phase angle of the rotors which is considered evaluating the kneading state of the kneader) including a pair of tangential rotors (items 5 and 6 are considered tangential) connected by a pair of gears and rotated at the same speed by driving of an electric motor (see gears items 7 and 8, paragraph 48 of the translation teaches electric power and a motor, paragraph 52 of the machine translation teaches gear ratio of 1 so they are rotated as the same speed), wherein the evaluation method is a method for performing spectrum analysis on a basis of a kneading parameter detected at a time of kneading by a sensor included in the kneader (paragraph 28 of machine translation, position detector sensors 26 and 27, ), and evaluating a change in a predetermined frequency component (paragraph 32 of machine translation teaches position detection sensors 26/27 and a timer which together measure frequency of the rotation), and the kneading parameter is at least any one selected from a temperature of a kneading material, an effective value of an alternating current supplied to the electric motor, a direct current value supplied to the electric motor, a power value consumed by the electric motor, a load ratio of the electric motor, an output torque of the electric motor, an acoustic wave generated from the kneader, and vibration generated from the kneader (paragraph 37 of the machine translation teaches peak load current of the rotor drive motor is obtained, which is considered either one of alternating or direct current). Regarding claim 1, Tsutomo is silent to the gears have numbers of teeth of different integers that are not prime to each other, which would inherently have different speeds due to gear reduction amounts. Regarding claim 1, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of gear reduction (the gears being different sizes from each other inherently would rotate the rotors at different speeds) since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Tsutomo is silent to the shape of the gears. Regarding claim 2, any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of agitation of gear reduction since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, Tsutomo teaches the evaluation method being a method of processing and spectrally analyzing the kneading parameter, the method including spectrally analyzing a deviation between a moving average value and a current value of the kneading parameter (paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches the current chart of the motor shows a large peak load of 130 percent, paragraph 13 teaches wherein the detected phase is within a predetermined range of the phase at which the rotor driving motor has a peak load, which is considered reading on a moving average).
Regarding claim 5, Tsutomo teaches a kneader (figure 2) comprising a pair of tangential rotors (items 5 and 6) connected by a pair of gears and rotated at the same speeds by driving of an electric motor (items 7 and 8, paragraph 17 of the machine translation teaches the gear ratio is 1 rotating at the same speed), wherein the kneader further comprises an analyzer that performs spectrum analysis on a basis of a kneading parameter detected at a time of kneading by a sensor included in the kneader (paragraph 28 of machine translation, position detector sensors 26 and 27), and the kneading parameter is at least any one selected from a temperature of a kneading material, an effective value of an alternating current supplied to the electric motor, a direct current value supplied to the electric motor, a power value consumed by the electric motor, a load ratio of the electric motor, an output torque of the electric motor, an acoustic wave generated from the kneader, and vibration generated from the kneader (paragraph 37 of the machine translation teaches peak load current of the rotor drive motor is obtained, which is considered either one of alternating or direct current). Regarding claim 5, Tsutomo is silent to the gear sizes and rotation speed (which is considered an inherently property of the gear sizes). Regarding claim 5, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of gear reduction (the gears being different sizes from each other inherently would rotate the rotors at different speeds) since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, Tsutomo teaches further comprising a determiner that determines an end timing of kneading in the kneader on a basis of a change in a predetermined frequency component obtained by the analyzer (paragraph 32 of machine translation teaches position detection sensors 26/27 and a timer, the time considered the determiner, which together measure frequency of the rotation and is considered capable of determining an end time of the kneading).
Regarding claim 7, Tsutomo teaches a kneading adjustment method in a kneader (see figure 2, page 2 of machine translation “Constitution” teaches measuring the phase angle of the rotors which is considered an adjustment method in a kneader) including a pair of tangential rotors (items 5 and 6 are considered tangential) that are connected by a pair of gears and rotated at the same speed (see gears items 7 and 8, paragraph 52 of the machine translation teaches gear ratio of 1 so they are rotated as the same speed). Regarding claim 7, Tsutomo is silent to the specific gear shapes. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of gear reduction (the gears being different sizes from each other inherently would rotate the rotors at different speeds) since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Tsutomo teaches wherein the tangential rotors each include a plurality of blades (figure 12 shows blades proximate items A, B, C, and D).
Regarding claim 9, Tsutomo is silent to the shape of the gears. Regarding claim 9, any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of agitation of gear reduction since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Tsutomo is silent to the shape of the gears. Regarding claim 10, any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the gears to obtain the desired degree of agitation of gear reduction since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomo (JP07016834 cited in the IDS mailed 1/13/2025 along with the machine translation provided with the IDS) in view of Perlberg (U.S. Patent 3500496).
Regarding claim 4, Tsutomo is silent to the specific materials used by the kneader. Regarding claim 4, Perlberg teaches a kneader (figure 1 mixer 10 is considered reading on a kneader) for kneading non-Newtonian material (column 2 line 1-4 teaches non-Newtonian fluids). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the material of Tsutomo with the non-Newtonian material of Perlberg in order to obtain the desired kneaded product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights