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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first means” for dispensing gas and “second means” for mixing two liquids in claim16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Further review of specification discloses that in Claim 16 , line 2 and 3 “first means” for dispersing gas and “second means” for mixing two liquid are described as projections or radial prongs ([0047])
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by SCHWABL, US 20180194037.
Regarding Claim 1 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) in which a stirring mechanism that can be rotated about a rotational axis is arranged (Figure 3, [0039]-[0040], agitator-7), wherein the first component is loaded with a gas to influence the formation of foam ([0039]) , the plastic is metered 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 the stirring mechanism disperses the gas in the first component in the mixing chamber ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 2 Schwabl discloses wherein the gas is injected directly into the mixing chamber by the valve device, and the stirring mechanism disperses the gas in the first component in the mixing chamber (Figure 1, [0040]).
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 7 Schwabl discloses, wherein the first component is mixed with the second component after the gas has been dispersed in the first component ([0039]).
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) 3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHWABL, US 20180194037.
Regarding Claim 3 Schwabl discloses all the parameters for the mathematical function of the volumetric flow of the gas injected into the mixing chamber at ambient pressure . 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 dimensionless value of the pressure in the mixing chamber in bar, - MAUS is the dimensionless value of 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 5 Schwabl discloses, wherein a second component is conveyed 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 , wherein a propellant gas is released during the chemical reaction ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 8 Schwabl discloses that the pressure in the mixture chamber ([0045]) and the discharge quantity of the product form the nozzle ([0004]). Schwbl didn’t particularly disclose that a setpoint for the volumetric flow of the injected gas. However, once the pressure in the mixing chamber and the mass flow rate of the plastic is determined which are typical operating parameters for a plastic injection process. The function, which is mathematical expression takes an input and produces an output therefore the product of the pressure in the mixing chamber and the discharge quantity of the plastic per unit of time (input parameter) can be used as setpoint for the volumetric flow of the injected gas (output parameter).
"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 as a measuring sensor ([0103]).
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. 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 pressure regulating valve designed as a closable needle valve. 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 stirring mechanism 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
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