DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least four (4) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 23 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Remarks
Remarks submitted 23 June 2026 contesting the previously cited JP 2006/044184 (Ogura) applicability to the amended claims are considered moot in view of new grounds of rejection outlined below. In particular, Ogura as previously applied is believed to be overcome by the amendment to claim 1 specifying the claimed feeder as configured to discharge raw material into a plasticizing cylinder, in particular since the rejection over Ogura relies on a plasticizing cylinder as the claimed volume-type feeder. New grounds of rejection below address this feeder configuration in addition to the weight- and volume-type feeders of amended claim 1.
Upon review of the new grounds of rejection below, Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for further clarification on any outstanding issues and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At lines 10-11 of claim 1, “raw” should be added between “the” and “material”.
In the 3rd to last line of claim 1, “the” prior to “raw” should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
In the 3rd to 2nd to last lines of claim 1, “the raw material that contains the first material mixed with the second material” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such raw material “that contains the first material mixed with the second material” is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (b) above.
The claim 2 line 3-6 recitation that the volume-type feeder repeats the discharging “and stopping of the discharging” is confusing. Since no such stopping is recited previously, the recited repeating of said stopping lacks antecedent basis.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 2 line 10 recitation of “the discharging” refers back to discharging from the third discharging port (of line 3-5) or the first discharging port (of lines 7-9), or may be construed as referring to the claim 1 discharging from the second discharging port.
The claim 2 line 11 reference back to “the stopping thereof” is confusing and lacks antecedent basis. While stopping discharge from the third discharging port is recited previously at line 6, the line 11 recitation of the stopping “thereof” refers back to a stopping of discharge from the first discharging port, which is not recited previously and in turn lacks antecedent basis. Further, such stopping of discharge from the first discharging port is confusing in that this would conflict with the line 7-9 continuous discharge therefrom during a predetermined continuous period.
Each of claims 3-5 refer to a period of time “when the detection sensor detects a predetermined amount of material charged in the third hopper”. This period of time lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such detection is recited previously in any of these claims. If these recitations are intended to convey that the feeder further comprises a controller configured in the manner recited, or more broadly that the feeder as a whole is configured in the manner claimed, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether “the discharging” referenced in the 3rd to last line of claim 5 refers to discharging from the third hopper (in which case this recitation would lack antecedent basis, requiring deletion of the term “the” prior to “discharging”), or refers to discharging from one of the previously recited discharging ports (in which case the specific discharging port should be specified).
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Rejection 1
Claims 1-3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Graf et al. (US 8,690,417, USPGPub thereof made of record via IDS on 26 June 2026).
As to claim 1, Graf teaches a fig. 1 feeder configured to discharge raw material into a plasticizing cylinder 13, the feeder comprising first and second weight-type feeders (as two of 6,6’,6”, see the 8:16-20 weighing) each having what may be construed as a hopper and discharging port, in addition to a volume-type feeder (either as drum 1 on account of use of the 8:37-44 “metering” valve 23 (i.e. controlling volume), or as discharge tank 2 on account for example of the 9:32 “volumetric” discharge therefrom) likewise having what may be construed as a hopper and discharging port.
Graf is not believed to disclose plasticizing cylinder 13 as being of an injection molding device on account of material discharged therefrom being subjected separately, for example, to shaping by a molding press 19 in fig. 1. However, it is noted that claim 1 is not presently drafted such that the recited injection molding device, or a connection thereto, structurally limits the statutory feeder being claimed. As a result, the claim 1 recitation of the plasticizing cylinder being specifically “of an injection molding device” is not believed to distinguish structurally over Graf’s feeder which otherwise comprises all claimed weight- and volume-type feeders as set forth above. Further, due to the claimed feeder being recited merely as “configured” to discharge into a plasticizing cylinder of an injection molding device, Graf’s feeder is additionally believed to be broadly capable of use for injection molding in place of the expressly disclosed press molding without deviating from the structural components (i.e. weight- and volume-type feeders) actually recited as part of the claimed feeder.
Graf’s above feeder is believed to be capable of use as recited by claims 2 and 8, and further comprises the claim 3 detection sensor (10:30-37). For the above scenario in which tank 2 corresponds to the claimed volume-type feeder, drum 1 corresponds to the claim 7 blender.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf as applied above, and further in view of JP S56-159211 (hereinafter JP ’211, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
As to claim 4, Graf teaches the 10:30-37 detection sensor for tank 2 and a stirring means 17 for drum 1 but not a combination thereof. However, JP ’211 discloses a similar feeder apparatus, in particular whereby a level sensor is provided in association with a hopper that comprises a stirring means (see at least figs. 1-2 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from JP ’211 into Graf as providing motivation to combine Graf’s above-cited sensor and stirring means (or an otherwise combinable sensor and stirring means such as those of JP ’211), in particular for Graf’s drum 1 so as to provide real-time assessment of material level therein as an additional parameter with which to provide process control, and/or for example to prevent overfilling.
As to claim 5, Graf teaches the 10:30-37 detection sensor for tank 2 and a shutter 23 (see the disclosed “intermittent” use of valve 23) for drum 1 which comprises stirring means 17 but not a combination of such a sensor and shutter for a single vessel. However, JP ’211 discloses a similar feeder apparatus, in particular whereby a level sensor is provided in association with a hopper that comprises a stirring means (see at least figs. 1-2 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from JP ’211 into Graf as providing motivation to combine Graf’s above-cited sensor and shutter, in particular for Graf’s drum 1 so as to provide real-time assessment of material level therein as an additional parameter with which to provide process control, and/or for example to prevent overfilling.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graf as applied above, and further in view of Ogura et al. (US 2011/0215496).
Graf teaches the feeder of claim 1 as set forth above, but discloses discharge from plasticizing cylinder 13 for press molding 19 as oppose to injection molding. However, use of a similar feeder for injection molding was known in related arts for example as set forth by Ogura in fig. 8 where multiple feeders 134/137 combine raw material into a volume-type feeder 26 likewise feeding into a plasticizing cylinder 14, but which in turn feeds into an injection mold 30. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Ogura into Graf as providing an alternative end use for the feeder thereof (i.e. injection vs. press molding), and/or as otherwise improving or increasing industrial applicability of Graf’s feeder to include injection molding.
Rejection 2
Claims 1, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanada et al. (WO 2017/179584, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
As to claim 1, Sanada teaches a feeder which comprises two weight-type feeders 3,3’ in addition to feeder 2 (see the corresponding description of at least fig. 1). Notably, although explicit disclosure is otherwise made of volume/capacity-type feeders 17 where feeder 2 is characterized instead as a “screw-type side feeder”, feeder 2, like the volume-type feeder disclosed by the instant specification, comprises a screw and is explicitly disclosed as providing a “set” volume/capacity of mixed raw material therefrom (see the corresponding description of at least Sanada’s fig. 1 as relevant), thereby also constituting a “volume-type feeder” as presently claimed absent further structural limitations that would distinguish over this interpretation of Sanada’s feeder 2.
Sanada further discloses discharge of the mixed raw material into a plasticizing cylinder 50, but is not believed to disclose this cylinder as being of an injection molding device. However, it is noted that claim 1 is not presently drafted such that the recited injection molding device, or a connection thereto, structurally limits the statutory feeder being claimed. As a result, the claim 1 recitation of the plasticizing cylinder being specifically “of an injection molding device” is not believed to distinguish structurally over Sanada’s feeder which otherwise comprises all claimed weight- and volume-type feeders as set forth above. Further, due to the claimed feeder being recited merely as “configured” to discharge into a plasticizing cylinder of an injection molding device, Sanada’s feeder is additionally believed to be broadly capable of use for injection molding in the manner claimed without deviating from the structural components (i.e. weight- and volume-type feeders) actually recited as part of the claimed feeder.
Sanada’s above feeder is believed to be capable of use as recited by claims 2 and 8.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanada as applied above, and further in view of JP S56-159211 (hereinafter JP ’211, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
As to claims 3-4, Sanada teaches a stirring means as the screw of feeder 2, but is not believed to disclose a detection sensor. However, JP ’211 discloses a similar feeder apparatus, in particular whereby a level sensor is provided in association with a hopper that comprises a stirring means (see at least figs. 1-2 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from JP ’211 into Sanada as providing such a level sensor to Sanada’s feeder 2, so as to provide real-time assessment of material level therein as an additional parameter with which to provide process control, and/or to prevent overfilling.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanada as applied above, and further in view of Hessenbruch (DE 102004051196, machine translation made of record with the Office action issued 24 March 2026 cited herein).
As to claims 3 and 5, Sanada is not believed to disclose a detection sensor or shutter. However, Hessenbruch discloses a similar feeder apparatus, in particular whereby a level sensor 9 or 18,20 is provided in association with a hopper that comprises a shutter 6 (see at least figs. 2-4 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Hessenbruch into Sanada as providing a level sensor and shutter to Sanada’s feeder 2, so as to permit real-time assessment and control of material level therein as an additional parameter with which to provide process control for example via said shutter.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanada as applied above, and further in view of Caccia et al. (WO 2020/212868, made of record with the Office action issued 24 March 2026).
As to claim 7, Sanada is not believed to disclose a blender. However, Caccia discloses a similar feeder apparatus in which such a blender 8 is utilized for blending material dispensed from multiple, distinct feeders (see at least the fig. 2 embodiment and its corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Caccia into Sanada as providing a blender for mixing the materials supplied to feeder 2 into a uniform blend.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanada as applied above, and further in view of Ogura et al. (US 2011/0215496).
Sanada teaches the feeder of claim 1 as set forth above, but is not believed to disclose injection molding therewith. However, use of a similar feeder for injection molding was known in related arts for example as set forth by Ogura in fig. 8 where multiple feeders 134/137 combine raw material into a volume-type feeder 26 likewise feeding into a plasticizing cylinder 14, but which in turn feeds into an injection mold 30. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Ogura into Sanada as providing an art-recognized suitable and/or alternative end use for the feeder thereof, and/or as otherwise improving or increasing industrial applicability of Sanada’s feeder to include injection molding.
Rejection 3
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura et al. (US 2011/0215496, made of record via IDS on 26 June 2026) in view of Sanada et al. (WO 2017/179584, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
As to claim 1, Ogura teaches a fig. 8 feeder configured to discharge raw material to a plasticizing cylinder 14 of an injection molding device 30, the feeder comprising feeders 134 and 137 each including a hopper and discharging port, in addition to a volume-type feeder 26 (see at least the [0150] and [0152] use of element 141 for controlling feeding speed (i.e. volume) to cylinder 14, and/or see the disclosure of such feeding as taking place based on signals from level sensors 140,143 indicating a level (i.e. volume) of material within feeder 26, thereby otherwise constituting a volume-type feeder based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the instant specification).
Ogura differs from claim 1 by not specifying feeders 134/137 as weight-type feeders. However, Sanada teaches a similar feeder apparatus, likewise comprising multiple feeders 3,3’ feeding material into a volume-type feeder 2 and plasticizing cylinder 50, in particular whereby the multiple feeders 3,3’ are explicitly specified as weight-type feeders (see the corresponding description of at least fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Sanada into Ogura as providing such weight-type feeders as being art-recognized suitable and/or alternative equivalents for the corresponding types of Ogura’s feeders 134/137, and/or as otherwise providing to these feeders 134/137 an ability to measure weight as an improvement thereof.
Ogura’s above feeder is believed to be capable of use as recited by claims 2 and 8, and further comprises the claim 3 and claim 5 detection sensor 140/143, the claim 5 shutter 141, and the claim 9 injection molding machine 30.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied above, and further in view of JP S56-159211 (hereinafter JP ’211, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
Ogura teaches detection sensor 140/143 but is not believed to disclose the claim 4 stirring means. However, JP ’211 discloses a similar feeder apparatus, in particular whereby a stirring means is provided in association with a hopper that comprises a level sensor (see at least figs. 1-2 and their corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from JP ’211 into Ogura as providing such a stirring means to Ogura’s feeder 26 so as to improve or increase uniformity of the material supplied thereto.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied above, and further in view of Caccia et al. (WO 2020/212868, made of record with the Office action issued 24 March 2026).
As to claim 7, Ogura is not believed to disclose a blender. However, Caccia discloses a similar feeder apparatus in which such a blender 8 is utilized for blending material dispensed from multiple, distinct feeders (see at least the fig. 2 embodiment and its corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Caccia into Ogura as providing a blender for mixing the materials supplied to Ogura’s feeder 26 into a uniform blend.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights