DETAILED ACTION
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 4-5, 10 & 12 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.
With regard to claim(s) 4-5, “height” has not been established relative to a reference(s) level; where it could be interpreted as relative to the floor or a plane in the device. Contrast this to claim(s) 8 where the “height” recitation has a reference(s).
With regard to claim(s) 10, “inner diameter” appears to be a double inclusion error in view of its recitation in claim(s) 8.
With regard to claim(s) 12, “one or more” lack(s) antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 & 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGregor (5,327,947).
McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s):
Supply device, figure(s) 2 & 11;
Powder, column 1, line(s) 26;
Hopper 10;
Funnel-shaped inner wall surface, abutting 244;
Gentle slope surface 216;
Steep slope surface 94;
Boundary portion, horizontal line(s) at 104, figure(s) 11;
Discharge unit 92;
Discharge port 98;
Auger screw 110;
Blade 114;
Rotation & cylinder axis 108;
second gentle slope surface 96.
Note that a vertical surface constitutes an upper limit of a steep slope surface.
Note further that McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) an auger-screw in the discharge unit.
With regard to claim(s) 1, McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) a powder supply device, figure(s) 2 & 11, comprising: a hopper 10 that accommodates powder, column 1, line(s) 26, and has a funnel-shaped inner wall surface, abutting 244, of which an inner diameter is decreased downward, the inner wall surface having at least two surfaces of a gentle slope surface 216 having a relatively gentle tilt angle with respect to a horizontal direction and a steep slope surface 94 having a relatively steep tilt angle with respect to the horizontal direction and having one or more boundary portions that change from the gentle slope surface 216 positioned relatively upward to the steep slope surface positioned relatively downward; a tubular discharge unit 92 that is connected to a lower portion of the hopper 10 and in which a discharge port 98 through which the powder is discharged is formed at a lower end; and an auger screw 110, at least a part of which is disposed in the discharge unit, which transports the powder, column 1, line(s) 26, toward the discharge port 98, and which has a rotation axis 108 extending in an up-down direction along a cylinder axis also identified at 108 of the discharge unit 92 and a helical blade 114 provided around the rotation axis.
With regard to claim(s) 2, McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) a second gentle slope surface 96 between gentle slope surface 216 and the discharge unit; constituting a connection.
With regard to claim(s) 3, McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) an upper end of the blade above the lower end of the Steep slope surface 94.
With regard to claim(s) 4-5, McGregor (5,327,947) meets the condition wherein the height of the Steep slope surface 94 is more than one times the blade pitch.
With regard to claim(s) 11, McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) all surfaces steepnesses oriented in the up-down direction.
With regard to claim(s) 12, McGregor (5,327,947) disclose(s) a Steep slope surface 94 parallel to the rotation axis.
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.
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.
Claims 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGregor (5,327,947) in view of Konishi et al. (JP 2013147270).
McGregor (5,327,947) lack(s) disclosure of these recited structural ratios. Konishi et al. (JP 2013147270) teach(es) a host of structural ratios in a powder supply device; particularly at conic section 4.
Further, as the applicant has failed to show criticality or unexpected results, these relative constrains is/are taken as a matter of design choice; particularly in view of the fact that no specific powder or particle size distribution is recited.
Additionally, with regard to claim(s) 7, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, (such the juxtaposition of inclinations) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify McGregor (5,327,947) to provide/substitute the recited structural ratios in order to accommodate practical considerations per each unique powder as taught by Konishi et al. (JP 2013147270).
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 JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653