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 § 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 4-6 and 8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
Claim 4 is rendered indefinite by the phrase “for example by gravity” (two occurrences) which makes unclear what it required versus optional.
In claim 5, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the first stored powder”, “the second stored powder” and “the stored mixed powder”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the first reservoir”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the second reservoir”.
In claim 6, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the third reservoir”.
Claim 8 is rendered indefinite by the phrase “for example selectively” which makes unclear what is required versus optional.
In claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the third reservoir” and “a second reservoir, a second reservoir” is confusing. Apparently the second recitation of “a second reservoir” should read - - a third reservoir - -.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Mee (US 286,716):
Regarding claim 1, Le Mee discloses a device for continuously mixing a first powder and a second powder, comprising: a first continuous dosing apparatus (a first set of “a” and “b”) of the first powder and a second continuous dosing apparatus (a second set of “a” and “b”) of the second powder, a mixer (c) arranged to mix the first powder dosed by the first dosing apparatus and the second powder dosed by the second dosing apparatus so as to provide a continuous stream of powder mixed according to a determined ratio, and a sampler (one of “f”) adapted to take a fraction of the stream of mixed powder.
Regarding claim 3, the mixer is a screw mixer (c). Also, as seen in Fig. 2, the vertical shafts of the first and second dosing apparatuses are also screws.
Regarding claim 4, first and second reservoirs for the first and second powders are arranged to store the first powder and to continuously provide the first powder to the first and second dosing apparatuses (see Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 9, the first powder, second powder and mixed powder are not required elements of the claimed device. As explained in MPEP 2115 “MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS” (block capitalization in original). See also In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963): “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” Also, "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding claim 10, Le Mee discloses a method for obtaining a mixed powder, implemented by means of the device discussed above with regard to claim 1, the method comprising a continuous mixing of the first powder and of the second powder (see line 20-21).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mee (US 286,716) in view of Ursic (US 3,638,916). The device of Le Mee was discussed above.
Regarding 2, the dosing apparatuses are not disclosed to be “gravimetric”. Ursic teaches gravimetric dosing devices (see col. 1, lines 45-55). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized gravimetric dosing to precisely control the amount of material fed as taught by Ursic (see col. 1, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 5, no particular further structure is recited in this claim; however, Le Mee does not explicitly disclose a tracking capability. Ursic teaches tracking by weight records (62, 62’) and weight totalizers (64, 64’). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized tracking to better control mixing as taught by Ursic.
Regarding claim 7, inerting means is not disclosed by Le Mee. Ursic teaches inerting means (see col. 1, line 73 to col. 2, line 9. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized inerting means as taught by Ursic because Ursic explains that excluding oxygen improves quality (see col. 2, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 8, the inerting means taught by Ursic distribute gas to and collect gas from a variety of components including a mixer (28).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Mee (US 286,716) in view of Soissa (US 2,460,605). The device of Le Mee was discussed above. A flexible fluid connection is not disclosed. Soissa teaches a flexible fluid connection (50). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a flexible fluid connection as taught by Soissa so as to facilitate switching the discharge of material to different destinations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
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, Claire X 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.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights