DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment filed on 12/2/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
3. Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of legal language “means” (line 2). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: section headings, such as for example “brief description of the drawings" and "detailed description" are missing. Further, on page 5 of the specification, line 13, “conveyor channel 5” should be --conveyor channel 15--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2, 10, 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2, the narrative recitation “in its operating position” leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 10, the narrative recitation “in its position” leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 12, the narrative recitation “its operating position” (line 3) and “itself” (line 15) lead to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 13, the narrative recitation “in its operating position” (line 3) leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Claim 14, the narrative recitation “between itself” (line 5) leads to issue with antecedent basis and clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-19 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.
I- Claim 1 is indefinite because “the metering unit” (lines 3-4) lacks proper antecedent basis.
II- Claim 3 is indefinite because “the mechanical positioning arrangement” (line 2) and “the operative relative position” (line 5) lack proper antecedent basis.
III- Claim 19 is indefinite because “the end” (line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim Interpretation
9. 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 § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-2, 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helfenstein et al. 2021/0364340 in view of Huang et al. (CN212361169U).
Helfenstein et al. disclose a gravimetric metering unit for bulk material as seen in Figure 1, having a metering means (1) having a container (4) for bulk material to be metered and a base unit (5), wherein the base unit has a conveyor channel (as seen in Figure 1) that feeds into an outlet line (9) of the metering unit via a connection device (16) having a flexible sealing element, and wherein the conveyor channel can be operationally connected to the outlet line and detached again therefrom via the connection device (col. 2, para. [0025]). Helfenstein et al. lack that wherein the connection device has a magnetic securing arrangement for the operational connection of the sealing element at least to either the outlet line or the conveyor channel or to both. Huang et al. teach the use of a flexible sealing element connection device (1), where the connection device has a magnetic securing arrangement (4, 6), wherein the magnetic securing arrangement has a mechanical positioning arrangement for positioning the flexible sealing element in the connection device in its operating position and a magnetic fixing arrangement for magnetically fixing the flexible sealing element in the operating position as seen in Figures 1-2, 4.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to substitute the flexible sealing element connection device of Helfenstein et al. with the flexible sealing element connection device of Huang et al., in order to provide a magnet sanitary quick-mounting flexible connecting device for a tight seal or no leakage of the product.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 3-6, 8-17, 19 are 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.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM -: 4:00 PM.
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, Paul R. Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights