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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legal phraseology, i.e., “comprising”, on line 2, should be avoided in the abstract. 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gas valve unit”, as recited by instant claim 3 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement sheets which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments section, or remarks, section of the amendment paper. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). A replacement sheet must include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheet(s) must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
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 6, and 10-15 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.
In claim 6, line 2, “a radial gap” should be replaced by --the radial gap--, since claim 5 from which claim 6 depends has already introduced “a radial gap”. Whereas the disclosure of the instant invention only suggests a single radial gap, applicant should make the above suggested change to avoid confusion. Further, it is noted that both recitations of “radial gap” in claims 5 and 6 include therewith reference numeral “34”, suggesting that the radial gaps in both of the claims are drawn to the same single feature of the invention.
In claim 10, lines 2-3, “the second section” should be replaced by --the second axial section--, to provide consistent language with independent claim 1, from which claim 10 depends.
In claim 11, line 2, “the second section” should be replaced by --the second axial section--, to provide consistent language with independent claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
In claim 13, line 3, “the second section (37)” should be replaced by --the second axial section (39)-- to provide consistent language within the claims and to avoid confusion between similarly named elements of the invention. Likewise, at the end of claim 13, “the first section (39)” should be replaced by --the first axial section (37)--, to provide clarity and consistency within the claims.
Claim 15, line 2, “the second section (39)” should be replaced by --the second axial section (39)-- to provide consistent language within the claims and to avoid confusion between similarly named elements of the invention.
Also, claim 15, as currently recited, is apparently relying upon functional language and/or the use of reference numerals from the drawings to clearly recite a structure of the second means within the second axial section of the device, neither of which provides a clear and distinct recitation of the intended feature.
Applicant should note that while the inclusion of reference numerals within the claims is permitted, so long as they appear within parentheses, reference numerals cannot be relied upon to define a clear and distinct structure of a claimed apparatus. The language of the claims, regardless of inclusion of reference numerals must provide a stand alone clear and distinct recitation of the claimed invention, to thereby provide a clear description of the scope of patent protection desired for the claimed invention.
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 1-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al taken together with Metzler ‘350.
Yamamoto et al (Abstract; Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 39-52; col. 11, line 1 through col. 12, line 32) disclose a mixing device for mixing a first component with a second component to form a foamable plastic, including a stirrer (20) arranged within a mixing chamber (210), the mixing chamber divided into a first mixing chamber (21, 22) and a second mixing chamber (23, 24) by a flow brake (26) arranged on the stirrer between the first and second mixing chambers, a first inlet opening (201) for supplying a first component into the first mixing chamber, and a second inlet opening (202) for supplying a second component into the second mixing chamber, the second inlet opening provided axially downstream from the first inlet opening, the flow brake being in the form of a shaft collar (claim 6) (26 in Fig. 2) creating a restrictor formed by a radial gap (claims 4 and 5) preventing backflow of material from the second mixing chamber into the first mixing chamber, thereby allowing for the second component to mix in the second mixing chamber with the premix material of the first component, which passes through the flow brake from the first mixing chamber to the second mixing chamber (claim 1). The stirrer (20) of Yamamoto et al is both rotatable and axially movable (see col 11, lines 12-15), wherein the first axial section (21,22) and second axial section (23, 24) of the stirrer are connected to one another in a rotationally fixed manner (claims 7 and 9). The outlet opening (29) of the device is arranged coaxially with the stirrer and closeable by the stirrer at the end of the axially stroke of the stirrer during filling of the foam molding device (250) (claim 8). The screw blades on the stirrer on the first and second axial sections thereof provide for both centrifugally forced outward flow and radially inward flow of the material being mixed by the device along the length of the stirrer (claim 15).
While gas clearly enters the Yamamoto et al mixing device with the first component at first inlet (201), and wherein the device clearly teaches a gas valve unit (151, 152) for regulating the amount of gas supplied to the device, the reference fails to specifically disclose a specific gas inlet opening in axial proximity of the first inlet opening with the gas valve unit for controlling the amount of gas supplied to the first mixing chamber.
With regard to the controlled gas inlet of instant claims 2 and 3, as well as the provision to provide a gas for mixing within the upstream first mixing chamber to form a premix material, as recited by independent claim 1, Metzler ‘350 (Abstract; The Figure) discloses a foamable plastics mixing device similar to that of Yamamoto et al, wherein Metzler ‘350 clearly teaches providing a gas supply inlet (3) arranged in axial proximity to a first component inlet (at 14) into the upstream end of a mixing chamber. Wherein Metzler ‘350 clearly teaches providing gas and liquid inlets in the same axial proximity at the upstream end of the mixing chamber, to facilitate a controlled integration of a chosen gas stream into a foamable plastics liquid stream, it would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to provide the apparatus of Yamamoto et al with a controlled gas inlet at the same axial location with the first component inlet into the first mixing chamber thereof, since such would provide convenient well known means for providing a uniform premix stream prior to interaction of the premix with the second component inlet arranged downstream of the flow break within the Yamamoto et al device, such facilitating the production of a desired, uniformly controlled foam plastic material to be molded at the downstream end of the mixer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 1-9, and 15 above, and further in view of Yamaki.
The reference combination as applied to claims 1-9, and 15 above, substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claim 10, except for the differing stirrer means being provided within the first and second axial sections of the device.
Yamaki (Fig. 7) discloses a foamable plastics mixing device similar to that of the primary reference combination, wherein Yamaki clearly discloses a stirrer having differing means thereon within the first mixing section (41-43) and the second mixing section (44-46), the mixing sections being separated by a flow break element (unnumbered) therebetween. It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the stirring means on the stirrer as suggested by the primary reference combination, to be different in the first and second axial sections of the device, in view of Yamaki, since such would allow for the mixing characteristics to be customized depending upon the foamable materials being worked on and the properties of the foam products being formed by the device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference combination as applied to claims 1-9, and 15 above, and further in view of Sulzbach et al.
The reference combination as applied to claims 1-9, and 15 above, substantially discloses applicant’s invention as recited by instant claims 11 and 12, except for the stirring elements on the stirrer being in the form of a plurality of radial projections arranged in axially extending rows (claim 11), with the projections of adjacent rows being axially offset (claim 12).
Sulzbach et al ((Fig. 1) disclose a foamable plastics mixing device similar to that of the primary reference combination, wherein Sulzbach et al clearly discloses a stirrer having the stirring elements on the stirrer being in the form of a plurality of radial projections arranged in axially extending rows (claim 11), with the projections of adjacent rows being axially offset (claim 12). It would have been obvious for an artisan at the time of the filing of the application, to modify the stirring elements of the primary reference combination, as applied to claims 1-9, and 15 above, to be in the form of simple radially extending projections arranged in axially offset rows, in view of Sulzbach et al, since such provides for a rigorous mixing of the components within a mixing chamber that will work for virtually all polymeric materials used for forming foam products.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES S BUSHEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1153. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
/C.S.B/6-27-26
/CHARLES S BUSHEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights