DETAILED ACTION
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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claim(s) 1-7, drawn to an inlet arrangement for a grinding machine.
Group 2, claim(s) 8-10, drawn to a control unit for an inlet arrangement.
Group 3, claim(s) 11, drawn to a grinding machine.
Group 4, claim(s) 12-15, drawn to a method for determining and controlling the level of mill-ing material in a storage container.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group 2 and 3 lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
Group 2 and 3 lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
Group 1 and 2 (2 and 3, 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 3 and 4) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an inlet arrangement in claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kenichi (JP 2010058115). See 102 rejection below.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Simpson on 2/6/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a machine control element” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1- 7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1-7 recite the limitation “preferably” or “more preferably” throughout the claims. It is unclear if the claim limitations that come right after “preferably” is included in the claim or just a preference. If it is a preference, it is subjective.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the level where the main sensor is provided” in line 15. It is unclear if the level is referring to “a level that corresponds…” or “a milling material level” or “a level for determining a weight force”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “more than one sensor” and “preferably 1 to 6”. The limitations are contradicting and unclear since one limitation says more than one sensor and other limitation says 1 to 6 which includes 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a machine control element”. It is unclear what the element is. There is no description of what the machine control element controls or figure that describe what it is.
All dependent claims of above-mentioned claims inherit all of the limitations of the above-mentioned claims. Thus, the claims are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kenichi (JP 2010058115).
Regarding claim 1, Kenichi discloses an inlet arrangement (Fig. 1-3) for a grinding machine (intended use: 5), preferably a roller mill, comprising: a storage container (1) with at least one milling material inlet (1a) and at least one milling material outlet (1c); at least one metering device (4) arranged in the storage container for metering milling material into a milling gap of the grinding machine, preferably roller mill, through the milling material outlet; a main sensor (7), preferably a force sensor, provided at the storage container at a level for determining a weight force exerted by the milling material; an additional sensor (6), preferably a level sensor, provided at the storage container for determining a milling material level in the storage container; and, a control unit (8, 9) which is connected or connectable to the main sensor and the additional sensor; wherein: the additional sensor (6) extends into the storage container to a level that corresponds to the level where the main sensor (7) is provided (level is interpreted as the whole portion of the storage container since within the container both sensors are provided); and, the control unit is configured to generate, from the values determined by the main sensor and the additional sensor (“the measured values of the load cell and the level sensor are input to the control means”) and from a setpoint value (“lower limit level”), an out-put signal (inherent. Signal is sent to “increase feeder gate interval”) to control the flow of the milling material out of the storage container. (“When the measured value of the stock level rises from the set lower limit level and the load of the two load cells rises from the set lower limit level, the stock feeder gate opening / closing means is operated to increase the feeder gate interval.”)
Regarding claim 2, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to generate said output signal based on a comparison of a value (“the measured values of the load cell and the level sensor are input to the control means”), calculated from the values derived from the main sensor and the additional sensor, with said setpoint value (“lower limit level”).
Regarding claim 3, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the additional sensor is a level sensor (6), preferably a capacitive sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein more than one sensor is provided as an additional sensor, preferably 1 (6 is one sensor) to 6, more preferably 1 to 4 level sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the main sensor is a force sensor (7 is a load cell which measures the weight force) which comprises an extension arm (see Fig. 2: 7 has arm that is bent towards the bottom) that protrudes into the storage container, wherein said extension arm is provided at a level (level is interpreted as the whole portion of the storage container since within the container both sensors are provided) that corresponds to the level where on end of the additional sensor in the storage container is located.
Regarding claim 6, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the main sensor (7) is arranged in a lower region, preferably a lower third, of the storage container. (see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7, Kenichi discloses the inlet arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the inlet arrangement further comprises a machine control element (9 controls machines).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4619408, US 4572441 teach similar prior art with the level sensors that are elongated vertically.
WO 2020025681 teach a similar inlet arrangement as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY YEONJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. 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.
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3725