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
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2, 5, and 8; and will examine the amended claims on their merits in the action to follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) and amendment(s) with respect to the prior 112(b) rejection over claims 1-10 regarding insufficient antecedent basis have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendments set forth by the applicant, therefore this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument(s) and amendment(s) with respect to the prior 103 rejection over claim(s) 1-10 regarding wherein Bacher fails to disclose the newly amendment recitation of, “wherein both said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B3, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B3, 70C) discharge said impurities through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M)” has been fully considered and, due to the amendments set forth by the applicant, is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Bacher (US5643450A) in view of Canaia (US20160317953A1).
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.
112(f) has been invoked in claims 2 and 4 due to the recitations of “rotation means for”. As stated above, the examiner will interpret the limitation “rotation means for” in light of the instant specification; wherein page 8 of the instant specification recites, “Suitable rotations means 28, preferably an electric motor.” Given this recitation, the examiner will interpret rotation means for, as an electric motor.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher (US5643450A) in view of Canaia (US20160317953A1).
For clarity of the record, the examiner has combined multiple embodiments of Bacher throughout this office action, and will refer to each embodiment as Bacher A and Bacher B.
Regarding claim 1, Bacher A teaches a filtering device (10; 110) for a plastic material in a molten state, said filtering device (10; 110) comprising: a hollow body (14) {Figure 5 reference (31) "housing"} provided with a mouth (16) {Figure 5 reference (4) "housing member"} and a cover (20) {Figure 5 reference (3) “member”} configured to be associated with said mouth (16) to define a filtration chamber (12); {Figure 5 reference (26) "collection space"}
an inlet way (22) for an introduction of said plastic material in the molten state in said filtration chamber (12), {Figure 5 reference (19) "upstream channel"} and an outlet way (24) for an outlet of filtered plastic material in the molten state from said filtration chamber (12); {Figure 5 reference (28) "downstream channel"}
a first filter (32) and a second filter (34) arranged side by side inside said filtration chamber (12) in a position between said inlet way (22) and said outlet way (24), {Figure 5 reference (5) "filter disk"} and said second filter (34) being configured to define a second surface (34A) adapted to filter said plastic material and collect any impurities therein; {Figure 5 reference (6) "filter disk"}
a cleaning device (40) arranged between said first filter (32) and said second filter (34); {Figure 5 reference (8) "scraper"}
and an evacuation device (80; 180) configured to discharge said impurities collected by said cleaning device (40) {Figure 5 reference (23) "worm"} towards an evacuation outlet (82), {Figure 5 reference (25) "opening"} said evacuation device (80; 180) being arranged centrally with respect to said cleaning device (40); {Figure 5 references (8) and (23) & Column 6 lines 41-43, "off the impurities scaped off by scraper 8 … and conveyed towards the center of scraper 8, is made by one single worm 23"}
wherein said cleaning device (40) comprises a rotary main body (42). {Figure 5 reference (9) "worm shaft" & Column 6 lines 48-49, "scraper 8 is connected form common rotation to the front end of the worm shaft 9"}
Bacher A fails to teach that the rotary main body is provided with a first side (44) facing towards said first filter (32) and provided with first scraping elements (48) cooperating with said first surface (32A) of said first filter (32) and a second side (46) facing towards said second filter (34) and provided with second scraping elements (50) cooperating with said second surface (34A) of said second filter (34),
wherein said rotary main body (42) comprises a first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B, 60C) communicating with said first side (44) and a second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) communicating with said second side (46) and configured to receive the impurities collected by said first scraping elements (48) and said second scraping elements (50), respectively, and to convey the impurities towards said evacuation device (80; 180),
wherein said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) are defined in said rotary main body (42) staggered with respect to one another and arranged symmetrically with respect to a middle plane (M) of said rotary main body (42),
wherein both said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B3, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B3, 70C) discharge said impurities through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M),
in such a way that said impurities pass through said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) along equal paths with a same flow rate and discharge said impurities in a balanced manner on said evacuation device (80; 180) through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M), thereby providing for an introduction of the impurities in said evacuation device (80; 180) in completely equivalent positions.
Bacher B, drawn to a plastic filtering device, teaches that the rotary main body is provided with a first side (44) facing towards said first filter (32) and provided with first scraping elements (48) cooperating with said first surface (32A) of said first filter (32) {Figure 10 reference (10) "scraper elements" & Column 10 lines 5-7, "to scrape off the impurities by the scraping action exerted by the scraper 8 onto the filter disks 5,6"} and a second side (46) facing towards said second filter (34) and provided with second scraping elements (50) cooperating with said second surface (34A) of said second filter (34), {Figure 10 reference (10) "scraper elements" & Column 10 lines 5-7, "to scrape off the impurities by the scraping action exerted by the scraper 8 onto the filter disks 5,6"}
wherein said rotary main body (42) comprises a first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B, 60C) communicating with said first side (44) and a second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) communicating with said second side (46) and configured to receive the impurities collected by said first scraping elements (48) and said second scraping elements (50), respectively, and to convey the impurities towards said evacuation device (80; 180), {Figure 10 references (65) "recess" & (66') "edge bottom" & Column 4 lines 18-28, "cutters disposed at the edges of these recesses or, respectively, openings, at the same time comminute bigger impurities, and this already immediately after the moment at which these impurities are supplied from the upstream channel into the periphery region of the respective filter disk. The more these impurities are comminuted, the easier the scraper carrier member can be rotated and the easier the comminuted impurities can be conveyed towards the center of the respective filter disk, where they reach the downstream channel and are conveyed off."}
wherein said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) are defined in said rotary main body (42) staggered with respect to one another and arranged symmetrically with respect to a middle plane (M) of said rotary main body (42). {Figure 10 references (65) "recess", wherein each recessed portion (65) is in a staggered, symmetrical configuration around the scraper's center point (90) in a radial form}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher A with Bacher B’s teachings of the discharge features and their orientations as Bacher teaches an alternate embodiment within the same patent, which shares a majority of the same features as the primary embodiment, showing it's compatibility with what has been deemed "Bacher A". Including the discharge features (scrape elements and channels) of Bacher B solves the issues of the impurities already with the inlet region of the filter apparatus, as the scraper carrier member is providing on the periphery with knives acting on the materials to be filtered and supplied through the upstream channel. {Bacher, Column 9 lines 5-12}
Bacher A modified by Bacher B fails to teach wherein both said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B3, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B3, 70C) discharge said impurities through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M),
in such a way that said impurities pass through said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) along equal paths with a same flow rate and discharge said impurities in a balanced manner on said evacuation device (80; 180) through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M), thereby providing for an introduction of the impurities in said evacuation device (80; 180) in completely equivalent positions.
Canaia teaches wherein both said first plurality of axially symmetrical channels (60A, 60B3, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B3, 70C) discharge said impurities through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M), {[0064] re. holes for windows 21 and 22, which are connected to collection channels 15 and 16 respectively}
in such a way that said impurities pass through said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and said second plurality of axially symmetrical channels (70A, 70B, 70C) along equal paths with a same flow rate and discharge said impurities in a balanced manner on said evacuation device (80; 180) through discharge openings (66) arranged on said middle plane (M), thereby providing for an introduction of the impurities in said evacuation device (80; 180) in completely equivalent positions. {[0067] re. the valves for release of the impurities that entered pipes 17 and 18 through windows 21 and 22}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher with Canaia’s teachings as Canaia, similar to Bacher, teaches a device for filtering plastic and cleans it of foreign bodies and elements {Canaia, [0003]}. Doing so would increases the efficiency of the device through the automation of the discharge sequence, utilizing pressure sensors to automatically open and close discharge valves. {Canaia, [0067]}.
Regarding claim 3, Bacher A teaches wherein said evacuation device (80) comprises an evacuation channel (85) which houses a rotary discharge element (84) configured to receive and move said impurities collected in said filtration chamber (12) along a longitudinal direction towards said evacuation outlet (82). {Figure 5, references (25) "opening" (evacuation channels and outlets) & (23) worm (rotary discharge element)}
Regarding claim 5, Bacher A teaches wherein said rotary main body (42) of said cleaning device (40) and said rotary discharge element (84) rotate in the same rotation direction, {Column 6 lines 50-51, "scraper 8 rotates in common with the worm shaft 9} wherein a rotation speed of said rotary discharge element (84) is higher than a rotation speed of said rotary main body (42) by such a value as to generate a tangential component of a speed of material flowing out of said discharge openings (66) that is consistent with a tangential speed of said rotary discharge element (84). {Column 3 lines 5-8, "scraper elements can be rotated with a speed being different from that of the worm carrying off the impurities…}
Regarding claim 6, Bacher A fails to teach fails to teach wherein one or more channels of said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and/or of said second plurality of channels (70A, 70B, 70C) have an increasing cross section towards said evacuation device (80; 180).
Bacher B teaches wherein one or more channels of said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and/or of said second plurality of channels (70A, 70B, 70C) have an increasing cross section towards said evacuation device (80; 180). {Figure 10, references (65) "recess" and (66) "edge bottom", Note how in Figure 10, the impurities are being scraped from the permitter of the scraper into the middle slots 33. While the channels or "recesses (65)" are wide to start they proceed to get narrower towards the middle of the channel, then increase in width again halfway through, indicating an increasing cross section}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher A with Bacher B’s teachings wherein one or more channels of said first plurality of channels (60A, 60B, 60C) and/or of said second plurality of channels (70A, 70B, 70C) have an increasing cross section towards said evacuation device (80; 180 as doing so creates a structurally stronger structure. It is well known in the art that more mass (increasing cross section), along the central axis, will increase the structurally integrity. Give there will be severe forces acted on within this section (due to the scraping elements and pressure changes), one would be motivated to have an increasing (stronger) cross section.
Regarding claim 7-8, Bacher A teaches wherein said rotary main body (42) is not constrained axially. (Claim 8) {Column 6 lines 48-49, "common rotation of worm shaft 9", wherein the main body or "worm shaft" are capable of rotating, proving they are not constrained in the axial direction}
Bacher A fails to teach wherein said first scraping elements (48) and/or said second scraping elements (50) comprise scraping blades configured to be arranged in contact with said first surface (32A) of the first filter (32) and/or with the second surface (34A) or said second filter (34); (Claim 7) and wherein said scraping elements (48) maintain said rotary main body (42) in an operating position centered between said first filter (32) and said second filter (34). (Claim 8)
Bacher B teaches wherein said first scraping elements (48) and/or said second scraping elements (50) comprise scraping blades configured to be arranged in contact with said first surface (32A) of the first filter (32) and/or with the second surface (34A) or said second filter (34); (Claim 7) {Column 6 lines 28-30, "Since the sheet metal angles that constitute the scraper elements 10 resiliently engage the filter disks"} and wherein said scraping elements (48) maintain said rotary main body (42) in an operating position centered between said first filter (32) and said second filter (34). (Claim 8) {Figure 5 reference (8), replaced with reference (10) of figure 10, wherein Figure 5 depicts the main body "worm shaft" with the scraping element is centered between both filters}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher A with Bacher B’s teachings wherein said first scraping elements (48) and/or said second scraping elements (50) comprise scraping blades configured to be arranged in contact with said first surface (32A) of the first filter (32) and/or with the second surface (34A) or said second filter (34); (Claim 7) and wherein said scraping elements (48) maintain said rotary main body (42) in an operating position centered between said first filter (32) and said second filter (34), (Claim 8) as continuous engagement is necessary for conveyance of the impurities out of the device without them getting stuck. {Bacher, Column 6 lines 29-30}
Regarding claim 10, Bacher A teaches wherein in the hollow body (14) closed by the cover (20) all the scraping elements (48, 50) are subjected to a same degree of compression. {Column 3 lines 40-49, "the scraper elements are automatically pressed against the filter discs by the pressure of the material to be filtered … as long as the pressure of the material to be filtered is retained", wherein the pressure exhibited on the scraper unit is uniform or the same degree, given the pressure is dependent on the surrounding material within the shaft and can be retained at constant/consistent flow (as taught by the rotating means limitation)}
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher (US5643450A) modified by Canaia (US20160317953A1), as applied to the claims above, in view of Gao (WO2019128024A1). *Gao is directed to the attached, machine-translated, English version
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Bacher teaches a first rotation means (27) for rotating said rotary main body (42) of said cleaning device (40); (Claim 2) {Figure 5 reference (9') "drive means" & Column 6 lines 48-49, "scraper 8 is connected form common rotation to the front end of the worm shaft 9"} and a second rotation means (28) for rotating said rotary discharge element (84). (Claim 4) {Column 3 lines 2-5, "Each scrapper is connected for rotation with a shaft disposed coaxially to a worm carrying off impurities and connected to a drive means being independent from the drive means for the worm.}
Bacher modified by Canaia is silent towards the first and second rotation means being electric motors (per the specification from the 112(f) invocation). However, Gao, drawn to a scraping mechanism for a plastic filtration device, teaches an electric motor {Page 1 abstract, "electric motor (16)" and bottom page 2, "plurality of scraper plates are evenly mounted on the winner wall of the rotating drum … the motor is connected to the reducer, and the reducer drives the drum through the gearset"}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher modified by Canaia with Gao’s teachings of an electric motor as Gao, similar to Bacher modified by Canaia, discloses their invention is a scraping mechanism for liquid plastic/paper material, and thus has the same function as the scraper in Batcher modified by Canaia. {Gao, Middle page 2} Doing so increases the efficiency of the device through automation, while utilizing a more environmentally friendly "fuel" source, such as electricity.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacher (US5643450A) modified by Canaia (US20160317953A1), as applied to the claims above, in view of Kim (KR102018686B1). Kim is directed to the attached, machine-translated, English version.
Regarding claim 9, Bacher A teaches wherein said evacuation device (180) comprises an evacuation channel (85). {Figure 5 reference (25) "opening"}
Bacher modified by Canaia fails to teach an on/off valve (190) configured to open to allow a movement of said impurities collected in said filtration chamber (12) towards said evacuation outlet (82) under action of pressure.
Kim teaches an on/off valve (190) configured to open to allow a movement of said impurities collected in said filtration chamber (12) towards said evacuation outlet (82) under action of pressure. {Middle page 9, "control unit 37 controls … the opening start time points of the first and second solenoid valves … The controller 37 may perform such forces inflow control until a pressure below the threshold is detected…}
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bacher modified by Canaia with Kim’s teachings an on/off valve (190) configured to open to allow a movement of said impurities collected in said filtration chamber (12) towards said evacuation outlet (82) under action of pressure as Kim, similar to Bacher modified by Canaia, teaches an invention which melts plastic for reuse and relies on pressure of the molten plastic to flow through the apparatus. Doing so improves the efficiency and quality of the pellet products with the increased impurity removal features. {Kim, Bottom page 2}
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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights