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 .
Claim Objections
In the third line of claim 12, it is suggested that “an optionally bituminous membranes” be amended to “and optionally bituminous membranes” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim without being in one of the acceptable forms outlined in MPEP § 608.01(n). Correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite. Lines 5-6 of the claim recite “at least one screw” and “preferably two twin screws,” and it is not clear what is required by the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 11, which depends on claim 1, recites “comprises two parallel twin screws” and is considered defined and therefore not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
Claims 2-10 and 12-14 depend on claim 1 and do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 1. Therefore claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for lacking antecedent basis since “the aforementioned motorized device” is not previously referred to in the claim, or claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 4 is additionally rejected for being indefinite since the claim uses “for example” and is it not clear if the aforementioned motorized device is required by the claim. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite and lacking antecedent basis since the claim depends on claim 4 and does not overcome the indefiniteness rejection or antecedent basis rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim uses “for example” and is not clear if a pair of weighing cells is required by the claim.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim uses “for example” and is not clear if a pivoting configuration is required by the claim.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) for being indefinite since the claim uses “for example” and is not clear if the driving torque configuration is required by the claim.
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, 3, 8, 11, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tazaki (U.S. Patent 4,761,897) in view of Guymon (U.S. Publication 2017/0081809).
Regarding claim 1, Tazaki teaches a heatable mixer (figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 39-45 which teaches the heating fluid configuration) for the treatment of composite products based on thermoplastic materials including factory or site waste containing mostly bituminous membranes (the materials being worked upon are considered intended use), said heatable mixer having an elongate composition defining a longitudinal treatment path between at least one inlet and at least one outlet (see figure 2 which shows the mixer having an elongated shape as it extends from the inlet 3 to the outlet 4), and comprising a trough which is heated (item 2 casing is considered reading on a trough), and in which there is fitted at least one, preferably two twin screws (figures 3 and 4 teach screw conveyors, column 3 line 21-23 teaches a screw conveyor) which are parallel and impenetrable at their threads (items 9a-c are parallel and items 16 are closed to the outer atmosphere), forming a unit/units for treatment by dimensional reduction and heating (items 9a-c and 16 are considered forming a unit, capable of treatment by dimensional reduction and heating), and displacement towards said outlet(s) for the products to be treated introduced or each inlet (material moves from item 3 to item 4), or each screw comprising a support shaft which is heated and rotated around its axis (items 9a-c are exposed to heat via heating fluid 17, see column 7 lines 9-11), the or each shaft being positioned in the trough by being arranged in the direction of the path (items 9a-c are positioned along a path from the inlet to the exit) and the products being displaced during the treatment from the inlets as far as the outlets under the action of the screw(s) (items 9a-c and 16 are used to convey material from items 3 to item 4), said heatable mixer comprising at least the or each outlet (there is an outlet 4), wherein the support shaft of the heatable mixer is provided with blades forming the thread of the screw concerned (items 16 are considered the blades) in that the opening of the or each outlet is formed directly in the wall of the trough (item 4 is formed in the wall of item 2). Regarding claim 1, Tazaki is silent to the valve configuration. Regarding claim 1, Guymon teaches a unit to control the flow of liquid or semi-liquid output of products treated flowing through the associated outlet (paragraph 55 teaches a valve or door), in that the or each unit to control the flow of output consists of a flap valve or pivoting valve (paragraph 55 55 teaches a door which is considered reading on a flap valve, paragraph 55 additionally teaches a valve for controlling the flow of material at the outlet) and in that said flap valve or pivoting valve consists a portion of the wall of the trough which is swept by blades (item 105 is at the wall of item 20) this portion being able to be displaced between a closure position in which it closes the outlet concerned and is incorporated in said all as a component part thereof (paragraph 55 teaches a closed position and incorporated with the cover at the outlet), and a maximal opening position in which the corresponding outlet is substantially open (paragraph 55 teaches an open position to allowed material to exit item 90). Regarding claim 1, 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 screw conveyor trough of Tazaki with the valve configuration of Guymon in order to control the exit of material from the trough.
Regarding claim 3, Tazaki is silent to the shape configuration. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the trough and valve to obtain the desired flow out of the trough 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, Tazaki teaches wherein the thread of the or each screw is an interrupted or discontinuous thread (see figure 9 items 16 are discontinuous and interrupted) and comprises a plurality of first blades that form smooth plates separated from on another axially and radially (figure 4 shows multiple blades that form smooth plates separated from each other along the axis of the shaft) and all arranged according to a constant screw pitch (items 16 have the same pitch shown in figure 4) and with a determined inclination relative to a plane perpendicular to the axis of the screw concerned (see column 12 lines 64-67 second to last line which teaches a first pitch of the helical vanes), and in that the or each screw comprises on at least part of its length a plurality of second blades (there are multiple items 16 along the shaft, a plurality of items 16 are considered reading on a second group), and in that said second blades are configured and arranged on the support shaft concerned such as to constitute a limited number of alignments of blades in a direction of the axis of the screw and around the shaft (items 16 in a second group of the plurality of items 16 are considered to constitute a limited number of alignments in the direction of the axis of the screw around the shaft items 9a-c) with cleared areas extending between the adjacent alignments along the screw (area between items 16). Regarding claim 8, Tazaki teaches varying the angle of the pitch but is silent to perpendicular blades (see column 5 line 47-51 teaches which teaches the angle of the vanes vary). Regarding claim 8, 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 vary the angle of the second pitch of screws to 90 degrees in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Tazaki teaches wherein said heatable mixer comprises two parallel twin screws (see figure 4 which shows comprising two parallel screws, including items 9a, 9b, and item 16) the respective blades of which interweave closely on at least part of their height either in at least an area of mutual engagement of the opposing threads of first blades which are inclined relative to the axis of support (items 16 interweave with adjacent items 16 on adjacent shaft, see column 5 line 47-51 teaches which teaches the angle of the vanes vary).
Regarding claim 12, Tazaki teaches an installation for treatment and upgrading of composite products based on thermoplastic including waste which includes mostly bituminous products an optionally bituminous membranes which is applicable are precut or fragmented (see figures 1-4, the materials being worked upon are considered intended use), wherein said installation comprises as a treatment station/treatment stations (figure 1 is considered showing the installation along with item 1) at least one heatable mixer as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the heatable mixer with the actuator, motorized device, rack, driven pinion, wherein the rack is in the form of an arc of a circle integral with said flap valve.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the heatable mixer with the combination of the automatic control device, motorized device with rack, and flap valve.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the heatable mixer with the combination of the scraping structures, resiliently deformable in a radial direction, wherein the scraping structure are resilient under pressure.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest the combination of two heatable mixers fitted in parallel, inputs supplied by a conveyor belt, superimposed crushing stations, each crushing station formed by a crusher with opposing rollers, a solid macroscopic pollutant separator device.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest a method of controlling a heatable mixer with the combination of the two driving phases in the direction of the treatment path, one opposing driving phase, and sensors.
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