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 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2021/0345660 to Mullen (Mullen).
Regarding claim 19, Mullen discloses an apparatus for filling and packing particulate material into each of a plurality of elongated containers (cone 602) each of which has an open top end and a closed bottom end (cone 602 is closed at one end and open at the other prior to being filled and closed), the apparatus comprising: a source of particulate material (the source of the material shown at the top of station 800); one or more conduits (dispensing apparatus 801 includes a conduit) for directly or indirectly providing particulate material along a flow path from the source to each of the plurality of elongated containers; and a compressed gas material delivery assembly (air nozzle; see [0081]) comprising a compressor (the source of the compressed air connected to the nozzle; the air nozzle of the filling assembly has similar configuration to air nozzle 104) which provides flowing compressed gas to the flow path which increases velocity of the particulate material and controllably increases compaction and density of the particulate material flowing into each of the one or more elongated containers ([[0079]-[0081]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullen in view of US Patent 10,154,686 to Heidtmann (Heidtmann).
Regarding claim 20, Mullen discloses a method for filling and packing a plurality of elongated containers with a consistent quantity and density of particulate material which flows from a source (source connected to dispenser 801), along flow path (formed by conduit of dispenser 801) having one or more outlets (outlet of dispenser 801) and a flow direction at each of the one or more outlets (the flow direction through the path to the outlet), to one of the plurality of elongated containers (602), which has an open top end, a closed bottom end, and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween (cone 602 has an open top, closed bottom and a longitudinal axis), the method comprising: positioning the elongated container in an orientation in which its open top end is proximate to and aligned with a corresponding outlet of the flow path for receiving flowing particulate material (see Fig. 8), its closed end is distal from the corresponding outlet of the flow path, and its longitudinal axis is aligned substantially along the flow direction at the corresponding outlet of the flow path (shown in Fig. 8); and (A) applying centrifugal force to particulate material flowing along the flow path which increases velocity of the particulate material and controllably increases compaction and density of the particulate material in each of the plurality of elongated containers (optional, not required by the claim), (B) providing a compressed gas to the flow path which increases velocity of particulate material flowing along the flow path and controllably increases compaction and density of the particulate material in each of the plurality of elongated containers (see [0079]-[0081]), or (C) both (A) and (B) (optional, not required by the claim). Mullen does not disclose a plurality of the elongate containers positioned at a plurality of outlets to be filled simultaneously. However, Heidtmann teaches a method for filling a plurality of elongate containers (tubes 100, 102, 104) positioned at a plurality of outlets (shown in the figures) so that the plurality of containers can be filled simultaneously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method of Mullen to include a plurality of dispensing outlets having a plurality of containers positioned thereat, such that the plurality of containers can be filled simultaneously, to increase the number of containers that can be filled in a given time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited documents disclose various systems for filling elongate containers with particulate matter which include a centrifuge which packs the matter into the container to a desired density and a motor connected to the centrifuge. However, none of these documents disclose “the centrifuge assembly having: a central conduit with an inlet for receiving particulate material and a central longitudinal axis which defines a rotational axis of the centrifuge assembly, and a bottom disc and a top disc which are each rotatably mounted on the central pipe via their respective central openings; one or more stackable discs, each of which has: a disc periphery, at least one container holder which holds the plurality of elongated containers proximate to and evenly spaced around the disc periphery, a central opening for rotatably mounting each of the one or more stackable discs on the central conduit of the centrifuge assembly, adjacent one another and in between the bottom disc and the top disc, the central conduit of the centrifuge assembly being in fluid communication with the central opening of each stackable disc mounted thereon, and one or more internal passages, each of which is in fluid communication with both the central opening and the disc periphery, thereby providing at least a portion of a flow path 31for particulate material to flow therethrough, from the central conduit of the centrifuge assembly and the central opening of the stackable disc, to the disc periphery, and the open top ends of respective one or more of the plurality of elongated containers held by the at least one container holder evenly spaced around the disc periphery, wherein the at least one container holder is capable of holding or allowing each of the plurality of elongated containers to move to an orientation in which the open top end of each elongated container is proximate the disc periphery for receiving particulate material, the longitudinal axis of each elongated container is aligned with and substantially parallel to the centrifugal force provided by the centrifuge assembly, and the closed bottom end of each elongated container is remote from the rotational axis of the centrifuge assembly, wherein the centrifugal force increases velocity of particulate material provided to each of the plurality of elongated containers.” The examiner finds not evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrange a particulate matter filling assembly as claimed, absent the teachings of Applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, the cited documents do not disclose or render obvious the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLAS A ARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M- F, 8AM - 3PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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.
/NICOLAS A ARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 September 11, 2025