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 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) 1-4, 9, 13-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5775532 A (Bullivant).
Regarding claims 1 and 13: Bullivant teaches a method of dispensing an additive, comprising: dispensing an additive from a secondary feeder to a primary feeder (hopper 12, weighing hopper 24: “A predetermined quantity of corn is dispensed from hopper 12 into weighing hopper 24”); dispensing the additive from the primary feeder to a mixing device (mixing hopper 34: “Except for weighing each mix sample during calibration, hopper 24 serves only as a depository for the blended ingredients as they are transferred by auger 25 to the mixing hopper 34”); obtaining a primary measurement from the primary feeder feeding the mixing device, wherein the primary measurement is a total weight of additive fed from the primary feeder over a time interval (hopper 24 weighs each mix sample (total weight) during calibration (over a time interval)).
Bullivant does not directly teach obtaining a secondary measurement from the secondary feeder that feeds the primary feeder, wherein the secondary measurement is a total weight of additive fed from the secondary feeder over the time interval; comparing the primary measurement and the secondary measurement; and (i) when the difference between the primary measurement and the secondary measurement is less than a selected threshold, continuing either or both of (i-a) dispensing the additive from the primary feeder to the mixing device or (i-b) dispensing the additive from the secondary feeder to the primary feeder; or (ii) when the difference between the primary measurement and the secondary measurement is greater than the selected threshold, halting either or both of (ii-a) dispensing the additive from the primary feeder to the mixing device or (ii-b) dispensing the additive from the secondary feeder to the primary feeder, and further recalibrating at least one of the primary feeder or the secondary feeder.
However, Bullivant does teach that the procedure for measuring the weight of an additive into weighing hopper 24 “is then repeated for the soybean meal and base mix with regard to their respective augers 20 and 22 to obtain their exact weight ratios”, teaching that multiple weight measurements are taken. While it is not directly taught that the Secondary feeder (hopper 12) takes temperature measurement, the teaching to take multiple weight measurements renders this limitation obvious. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hopper 12 of Bullivant with weighing sensors (as in weighing hopper 24). This is because Bullivant teaches taking multiple weight measurements at many steps in their process. This is important in order to ensure accuracy in weight measurements across different pieces of equipment.
Bullivant additionally teaches that “Controller 32 may be programmed to recalibrate the feed system after so many pound increments of mix have been mixed or simply allow the entire feed mix to be completed”. This requires that a comparison to a standard measurement is made. In order to recalibrate a system that mixes a variety of substances after weighing them requires comparing the obtained values to a standard and adjusting the mixing based on the measured difference from the threshold value.
Independent claim 13 consists of limitations from claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 14-15: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 1 and the additive feed system of claim 13 (see above), but does not directly teach that the selected threshold is 5%, 10%, or 15%.
However, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 1 and the additive feed system of claim 13 (see above), but does not directly teach further comprising obtaining a tertiary measurement from a tertiary feeder that feeds the secondary feeder; and wherein comparing comprises comparing the primary measurement or secondary measurement to the tertiary measurement.
However, Bullivant does teach that that the procedure for measuring the weight of an additive into weighing hopper 24 “is then repeated for the soybean meal and base mix with regard to their respective augers 20 and 22 to obtain their exact weight ratios”, teaching that multiple weight measurements are taken and multiple feeders are used. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the additive feeding system of Bullivant with a tertiary feeder. This is because a multiplicity of feeders and weight measurements is taught. This is important in order to obtain accurate weight measurements by duplicating a weighing feeder and therefore obtaining additional measurements to verify accuracy across different pieces of equipment. It follows then that the comparison step would include comparison to the measured values from the tertiary feeder as well.
Claim(s) 5-6, 10-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5775532 A (Bullivant) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20040002789 A1 (Hachtel).
Regarding claims 5 and 16: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 1 and the additive feed system of claim 13 (see above), but does not directly teach obtaining the secondary measurement comprises obtaining a plurality of instantaneous secondary measurements each determined only during time periods of actively dispensing the additive from the Secondary feeder to the Primary feeder, and summing the instantaneous secondary measurements to determine a total weight loss in the secondary feeder for the time interval.
Bullivant teaches that “the total weight of material consumed by the utilization equipment over time must be determined”.
Hachtel teaches that a standard loss-in-weight feeder takes instantaneous weight measurements (Paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight measurement of Bullivant with the instantaneous measurement of Hachtel. This is because these are both feeders with weight measurements taken. This is important in order to get accurate and timely weight measurements from the feeder.
Regarding claim 6: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 5 (see above), but does not directly teach that the time interval is 1 hour.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be able to select a time interval that is appropriate to the specifications of their situation based on the equipment and dispensing times at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a time interval of 1 hour.
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 9 and the additive feed system of claim 19 (see above), but does not directly teach that obtaining the tertiary measurement comprises obtaining a plurality of instantaneous tertiary measurements each determined only during time periods of actively dispensing the additive from the tertiary feeder to the secondary feeder, and summing the instantaneous tertiary measurements to determine a total weight loss in the tertiary feeder for the time interval.
Bullivant teaches that “the total weight of material consumed by the utilization equipment over time must be determined”.
Hachtel teaches that a standard loss-in-weight feeder takes instantaneous weight measurements (Paragraph [0004]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the weight measurement of Bullivant with the instantaneous measurement of Hachtel. This is because these are both feeders with weight measurements taken. This is important in order to get accurate and timely weight measurements from the feeder.
Regarding claim 11: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that the primary measurement and the secondary measurement independently comprise a total additive concentration calculated as the weight loss of the feeder/total product weight.
However, Hachtel teaches that “the feeder is in ratio control to one or more other flow variables.” This requires that an additive concentration is calculated from multiple feeders (one or more other flow variables). While not explicitly stated, the formula for calculating a concentration is “part/whole”, which in this case means the weight of the additive/weight of the whole mixture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feeder system of Bullivant with the ratio calculation of Hachtel. This is because they are both controlled feeder systems. This is important in order to ensure that a proper concentration of additive is incorporated into the mixture.
Regarding claim 12: Bullivant teaches the method of claim 1 (see above), but does not directly teach that either or both of the primary feeder and the secondary feeder is a gravimetric feeder.
However, Hachtel teaches that “[loss-in-weight] feeders are precision gravimetric devices that operate on the principle of weight loss over a period of time to generate a mass flow rate based on an established setpoint”.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the feeders of Bullivant with the gravimetric feeding system of Hachtel. This is because they both are methods of dispensing a material from at least one feeder into a mixing container. This is important in order to obtain accurate and consistent dispensing of material into the mixing container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No relevant prior art cited teaches the use of an additive feeding system with a continuous polymerization process nor a batch polymerization process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20010024096 A1 teaches an apparatus for controlling the feed rate of a feeder.
US 20120080095 A1 teaches a valve system for monitoring and controlling a flow of a fluid additive into a main fluid line.
US 20180039288 A1 teaches an additive selection system, which selects an additive for dispensing into a working fluid, having a fluid sensing chamber with sensors.
US 8989906 B2 teaches a method for regulating fluid pump pressures by detecting an elevation differential between a fluid flow control device and the distal end of a fluid line in communication with the fluid flow control device.
US 7287434 B2 teaches a primary flow measurement system, a secondary flow measurement system in fluid communication with the primary flow measurement system and a control coupled to the primary flow measurement system and the secondary flow measurement system.
AU 2011343828 A1 teaches an apparatus and methods for measuring the concentration of an additive.
AU 3283993 A teaches an additive injector system for injecting a controlled amount of a first fluid into a main stream of a second fluid.
DE 102014104706 A1 teaches a fluid supply system for providing a fluid to a fluid collector, including delivery means, a piston pump, and a control device.
EP 0124251 A2 teaches a transportable apparatus for controlling the production of a mixture of a fluid and a plurality of additives using a unified control panel.
GB 2570885 A teaches a chemical dosing system for adding a chemical concentrate to a diluent, the system comprising a container for holding a diluent and receiving the chemical concentrate, a dispenser mechanism for dispensing a known quantity of concentrate into the container, a detector arranged to detect the quantity of diluent in the container and a processor arranged to control the dispensing mechanism so as to dispense a volume of concentrate in dependence on the quantity of diluent in the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA FITZPATRICK whose telephone number is (703)756-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)272-2160. 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.
/JULIA FITZPATRICK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/LAURA MARTIN/SPE, Art Unit 2855