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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-15 are amended. Claims 4 and 8 are canceled. Claims 17-21 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that prior art did not SCHWABL closing at least one of the mixing chamber or the valve, and opening, after closing the at least one of the mixing chamber or the valve, the at least one of the mixing chamber or the valve to meter a second amount of the foamed plastic out of the mixing chamber through the outlet nozzle.
Examiner maintains that SCHWABL discloses a gas source -10 with a valve and that such as a regulator or control valve, opens and closes to control pressure, flow, or temperature. Open position allows maximum fluid/gas flow through the system and closed position creates a complete seal, stopping all flow and cycling back and forth based on specific upper and lower metric thresholds.
Further, the applicant argues that the volumetric flow of the gas injected into the mixing chamber at ambient pressure is equal to or greater than a setpoint based on the pressure in the mixinq chamber, the discharge quantity of the foamed plastic, and the volumetric flow of the qas already dissolved in the first component, as recited in amended independent claim 1.
However, examiner maintains that as applicant defines the set point of the volumetric flow of the injected gas as Find = (m x (PMK x MAUS)) - Fold, where the parameters are Find is the setpoint of the volumetric flow of the injected gas in cm3/s, -m is the gradient in cm3/s, PMK is the pressure in the mixing chamber in bar, - MAUS is the discharge quantity in g/s, and Fold is the volumetric flow of the gas already dissolved in the first component , in cm3/s, these are measured quantities which can be determined by Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011], a gas is flown at a set pressure range, m is the gradient which could be measured by changing the value in between metering operations; therefore all these parameters are present in the reference and could be easily recognized by persons of ordinary skill with mere routine experimentation therefore it would be obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art to have closing and opening mechanism in between two metering operations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 3-7, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037.
Regarding Claim 1 Schwabl discloses method for metering a foamed or foamable plastic in a discontinuous manner method (abstract)[0043], the method comprising: conveying at least one first component for forming the plastic into a mixing chamber of a mixing device (Figure 3, [0039], mixing chamber-12) rotating a stirrer in the mixing chamber about a rotational axis (Figure 3, [0039]-[0040], agitator-7), injecting a gas the first component using a valve to form the foamed plastic ([0039])-[0040], valve-10 , metering the first amount of the foamed plastic out of the mixing chamber through an outlet nozzle (Figure 3, nozzle-9, [0041], [0042]), the pressure in the mixing chamber ranges from 0.2 bar to 15 bar ([0033]), the gas is injected into the first component by a valve device ([0039]-[0040], valve device-10), and rotating the stirrer disperses the gas in the first component in the mixing chamber ([0040]). Further re: the limitation SCHWABL didn’t particularly disclose that closing at least one of the mixinq chamber or the valve; and opening, after closing the at least one of the mixinq chamber or the valve, the at least one of the mixing chamber or the valve to meter a second amount of the foamed plastic out of the mixing chamber through the outlet nozzle. However, SCHWABL discloses that gas source -10 with a valve and that such as a regulator or control valve, opens and closes to control pressure, flow, or temperature. Open position allows maximum fluid/gas flow through the system and closed position creates a complete seal, stopping all flow and cycling back and forth based on specific upper and lower metric thresholds therefore it would be obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art to have closing and opening mechanism in between two metering operations.
Further re: the limitation that volumetric flow of the gas injected into the mixing chamber at ambient pressure is equal to or greater than a setpoint based on the pressure in the mixing chamber, the discharge quantity of the foamed plastic, and the volumetric flow of the gas already dissolved in the first component. As disclosed by the applicant set point of the volumetric flow of the injected gas as Find = (m x (PMK x MAUS)) - Fold, where the parameters are Find is the setpoint of the volumetric flow of the injected gas in cm3/s, -m is the gradient in cm3/s, PMK is the pressure in the mixing chamber in bar, - MAUS is the discharge quantity in g/s, and Fold is the volumetric flow of the gas already dissolved in the first component , in cm3/s, these are measured quantities which can be determined by Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011], a gas is flown at a set pressure range, m is the gradient which could be measured by changing the value in between metering operations; therefore all these parameters are present in the reference and could be easily recognized by persons of ordinary skill with mere routine experimentation therefore it would be obvious for persons of ordinary skill in the art to have closing and opening mechanism in between two metering operations.
Regarding Claim 2 Schwabl discloses wherein the gas is injected directly into the mixing chamber by the valve device (Figure 1, [0040], valve-10).
Regarding Claim 3 Schwabl discloses wherein the setpoint is determined by the function. The function is : Find = (m x (PMK x MAUS)) - Fold, where the parameters are Find is the setpoint of the volumetric flow of the injected gas in cm3/s, -m is the gradient in cm3/s, PMK is the pressure in the mixing chamber in bar, - MAUS is the discharge quantity in g/s, and Fold is the volumetric flow of the gas already dissolved in the first component , in cm3/s, these are measured quantities which can be determined by Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011], a gas is flown at a set pressure range, m is the gradient which could be measured by changing the value in between metering operations. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 4 Schwabl discloses wherein the mixing chamber and/or the valve device is opened during a metering process and closed between two metering processes ([0045]).
Regarding Claim 5 Schwabl discloses, wherein comprising conveying a second component for forming the foamed plastic into the mixing chamber ([0039]-[0040], but didn’t specifically discloses that, a chemical reaction takes place between the first component and the second component. However if two chemicals are mixed it would be obvious for them to react after being agitated in the mixing chamber. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6 Schwabl discloses between the first component and second component releases a propellant gas ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 7 Schwabl discloses, wherein the rotating the stirrrer in the mixing chamber mixes the first component with the second component after the gas has been dispersed in the first component ([0039]).
Regarding Claim 17 Schwabl discloses wherein the foamed plastic is a polyurethane or a silicone ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 18 Schwabl discloses the foamed plastic is a polyurethane ([0017]) but didn’t disclose that the gradient m is from 0.010 cm3/s to 0.09 cm3/s. However, Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011], a gas is flown at a set pressure range, m is the gradient which could be measured by changing the value in between metering operations. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 19 Schwabl discloses , wherein the foamed plastic is a silicone ([0013]) but didn’t disclose that the gradient m is from 0.060 cm3/s to 0.269 cm3/s. However, Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011], a gas is flown at a set pressure range, m is the gradient which could be measured by changing the value in between metering operations. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Claim 20 Schwabl’s mixing device (Figure 1, [0042], [0044], gas injected at feed-2, pressure is selected at the chamber-12, discharge can be measured by opening-4, [0011] but didn’t disclose that the discharge quantity MAUS is from 0.2 g/s - 120 g/s. However, the optimum desired range can be achieved by routine experimentation by persons of ordinary skilled in the art. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037 in view of Yusa (US 20180339439).
Regarding Claim 9 Schwabl discloses a pressure regulating valve-10 for the air source-10 ([0040]) and an outlet of the pressure regulating valve is connected to the mixing chamber (Figure 1) but didn’t disclose that wherein the valve device comprises a pressure regulating valve and a mass flow controller wherein an outlet of the mass flow controller is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Yusa discloses valve device comprises a pressure regulating valve and a mass flow controller wherein an outlet of the mass flow controller is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve (Figure 2, [0060] flow controller/ gas bomb-100 with the tank-153 (foaming agent), pressure regulating valve-152; outlet of the mass flow controller-151 is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve-152)
It would be obvious to combine the teaching of Schwabl with that of the Yusa’s teaching of flow controller for the purpose of controlled flow of the foaming agent in the mixture
Regarding Claim 10 Yusa discloses , wherein an inlet of the mass flow controller is subjected to a pressure of 4 to 300 bar ([0103], 14.5 Mpa`~145 bar, pressure of the physical foaming agent is within the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 11 Yusa discloses that outlet of the mass flow controller-151 is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve-152 wherein a pressure at the outlet of the mass flow controller is 4Mpa (40 bar).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) SEE MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 13 Yusa discloses wherein the mass flow controller comprises a calorimetric flow meter ([0103]).
Regarding Claim 21 Yusa discloses valve device comprises a pressure regulating valve and a mass flow controller wherein an outlet of the mass flow controller is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve (Figure 2, [0060] flow controller/ gas bomb-100 with the tank-153 (foaming agent), pressure regulating valve-152; outlet of the mass flow controller-151 is connected to an inlet of the pressure regulating valve-152). Yusa discloses an inlet of the mass flow controller is subjected to a pressure of 4 to 300 bar but didn’t disclose that an inlet of the mass flow controller is subjected to a pressure of 7 to 30 bar. 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. SEE MPEP 2144.05 II
Claim(s) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037 in view of Yusa (US 20180339439) as applied in claim 9 further in view of Fetz (US 6494231)
Regarding Claim 12 Schwabl discloses a pressure regulating valve-10 for the air source-10 ([0040]) and an outlet of the pressure regulating valve is connected to the mixing chamber (Figure 1) but didn’t disclose that, wherein the pressure regulating valve has a needle and a piston unit coupled to the needle. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Fetz discloses pressure regulating valve has a needle and a piston unit coupled thereto, which comprises a pressure guide piston and a closing piston (Figure 3, needle-23, piston/plunger-32, cylinder guide-31, Col 3 line 51-54, Col 4 line 8-15), wherein, in pressure control operation, the pressure guide piston is decoupled from the closing piston, and the closing piston presses against the pressure guide piston when the pressure regulating valve is to be closed (Col 4 line 8-15).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schwabl’s teaching of Fetz’s valve device for the purpose of a controlled operation and the pressure can be adjusted while the metering operation.
Regarding Claim 14 Schwabl discloses a pressure regulating valve-10 for the air source-10 ([0040]) and an outlet of the pressure regulating valve is connected to the mixing chamber (Figure 1) but didn’t disclose that wherein the valve device comprises a as a closable needle valve for pressure regulation. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Fetz discloses valve device comprises a pressure regulating valve designed as a closable needle valve (Col 3 line 51-55).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schwabl’s teaching of Fetz’s valve device for the purpose of a controlled operation and the pressure can be adjusted while the metering operation.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037 in view of Yusa (US 20180339439) as applied in claim 1 further in view of BUSIN (US 20090207685)
Regarding Claim 15, Schwabl discloses method for metering a foamed or foamable plastic in a continuous or discontinuous manner (abstract)[0043], comprising: at least one first component for forming the plastic is conveyed into a mixing chamber of a mixing device (Figure 3, [0039], mixing chamber-12) but didn’t disclose that mixing device by which the mixing chamber is separated into a first mixing region and a second mixing region. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, BUSIN discloses mixing chamber with a flow brake is separated into a first mixing region and a second mixing region (Figure 4a, [0062])
It would have been obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to combine Schwabl’s teaching with that of Busin’ s teaching for the purpose of having controlled flow rates while mixing in two different regions.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037 in view of Yusa (US 20180339439) and BUSIN (US 20090207685) as applied in claim 15 further in view of Hamilton (US 20070086271)
Regarding Claim 16, Schwabl discloses the stirrer has a first axial portion with first means for dispersing gas in a liquid ([0039], [0046], first means/shaft-16, agitator-7 with a feed opening-2 for the gas and the liquid). However, Schwabl didn’t disclose a second means for mixing two liquids. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Hamilton discloses that the liquids can be mixed with the stirrer-1800 having projections -1804 (Figure 18, projections-1804, [0022], [0023], [0083]).
It would have been obvious for ordinary skilled in the art to modify Schwabl’s teaching with that of Hamilton’s teaching of the stirrer with projections for the purpose of homogenization of the liquid mixture.
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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights