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 .
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 preliminary amendment filed on 12 August 2024 is acknowledged.
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 claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action; such claim limitations include the claim 4 stirring means. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application also includes at least one claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) include at least the claim 7 blender.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 6 phrase extending from lines 5-7 thereof should be revised, for example to replace “the raw material” with “the raw material is a first raw material containing a first material”, to delete the term “is” prior to “supplied”, and to delete the term “supplies”.
It is believed that claim 6 at line 9-10 should be corrected to specify “the raw material” as “a second raw material”, and in turn that “the raw material” at each of lines 11 and 13 should be changed to “the second raw material”.
In light of suggested corrections under objections (a) and (b), it is believed that the claim 6 recitation of “the raw material” extending from the 3rd to 2nd to last lines thereof, in addition to the claim 7 line 4 recitation of “the raw material”, should each be changed to “the first and second raw materials”.
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 1-9 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:
Repeated use of the term “feeder”, in particular at lines 1, 2, and 5 of claim 1, in particular as the line 1 feeder comprising a line 2 feeder and line 5 feeder (i.e. a feeder comprising a feeder and a feeder), is confusing.
Further, and as a result thereof, it is unclear whether “feeder” referenced at line 1 of each of dependent claims 2-8 and line 2 of claim 9 refer back to the claim 1 line 1 feeder, claim 1 line 2 feeder, or claim 1 line 5 feeder.
The claim 2 recitation of the volume-type feeder that “repeats the…stopping of the discharging” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such stopping is recited previously.
The claim 2 recitation that the weight-type feeder “continuously discharges” during a continuous period “during which…the stopping thereof” is performed, is confusing. It is unclear how the discharging can be construed as taking place over a continuous period if the discharging is stopped during this same period.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at lines 5-6 of claim 3 whether “a predetermined first amount of material” refers back to a predetermined first amount of “the raw” material previously recited.
This issue exists also for the claim 4 line 7-8 recitation of “a predetermined second amount of material” and the claim 5 line 8-9 recitation of “a predetermined third amount of material”
Each of claims 3-5 refer to a period of time “when the detection sensor detects a predetermined” first, second, or third amount of material. This referenced 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, then it is suggested that a fully supported amendment be made to this effect.
Due to the 12 August 2024 claim amendment, claim 4 now recites the line 7-8 predetermined “second amount” of material without any “first” amount of the material being recited previously, which is confusing. This “first” amount is believed to have corresponded to that recited in claim 3, but with claim 4 now depending from claim 1, no such “first” amount is recited previously, and so the claim lacks antecedent basis in this regard.
This same or similar issue exists also for the claim 5 line 8-9 recitation of a predetermined “third amount” of material without any first or second amount recited previously, in particular due to the change of claim 5 to depend from claim 1 as opposed to claims 3 and/or 4.
The claim 6 phrase extending from lines 5-7 thereof is confusing and should be revised. See objection (a) above for suggested corrections to this effect.
The claim 6 line 9-10 recitation of “the raw material containing a second material” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such second material is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (b) above.
The claim 6 recitation from the 3rd to 2nd to last lines thereof of the raw material into which the first and second materials “are mixed” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since although first and second materials are recited previously in the claim, no such materials which “are mixed” is recited previously.
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.
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.
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.
Rejection 1
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogura (JP 2006-044184, made of record via IDS on 12 August 2024).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to at least claim 1.
As to claim 1, Ogura teaches components corresponding to each of the claimed weight-type feeder (see the fig. 1 feeder comprising hopper 8 and load cell 7, in addition to a discharge port which may be construed as that either of the hopper 8 or of feeder 2 as a whole), and the claimed volume-type feeder (which can be construed as comprising extruder 3, optionally in addition to accumulator 4 and injection device 5, one or more of which may be construed as comprising the depicted fig. 1 hopper to which material is fed from feeder 2, with a discharge port thereof construed as that either of this hopper, of feeder 3, of accumulator 4, and/or of injection device 5, and with a volume of fed material regulated by gear box 11, screw 12, accumulator 4, valve 13, and/or plunger 14).
It is noted that because claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, this claim is generally not believed to be further limited by an intended material or article worked upon thereby (e.g. the claimed raw material – see MPEP § 2115) or by an intended manner of its operation (e.g. by the claimed supplying and discharging – see MPEP § 2114(II)), and must instead distinguish over prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Nonetheless, the instant claim 1 structure, intended material, and intended manner of operation are all disclosed by Ogura as set forth above.
Ogura’s above-cited apparatus is believed to be capable of the claim 2 discharging and stopping (for example via one or more of motor 6, gear box 11, the plunger of accumulator 4, valve 13, and plunger 140), is believed to be capable of use with the claim 8 materials (note again that the claimed intended use of a plurality of materials having different bulk densities is not limiting structurally to the apparatus claimed, nor does this distinguish structurally over Ogura), and is provided with the claim 9 injection molding machine 5.
As to claim 3, it is noted that while Ogura only discloses load cell 7 in association with first hopper 8, Ogura further discloses this sensor being for calculating a supply amount of material by a control device (machine translation made of record 12 August 2024 in the final sentence of [0014]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to extend this same measurement and control also to the other disclosed feeder hopper in association with the fig. 1 extruder 3, in particular so as to more closely monitor the material originating upstream, and in turn to better control downstream output as needed. As to the claimed discharge stopping, it is noted that as presently recited, this pertains to an intended manner by which the claimed apparatus is used as opposed to a limitation distinguishing structurally over what Ogura discloses or over how the Ogura apparatus is capable of use.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to at least claim 1 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, and in addition/alternative to the rejection of claim 3 over Ogura alone as set forth above, it is noted again that Ogura only discloses a sensor 7 for measuring load/amount in association with hopper 8, and also that Ogura is not believed to disclose use of a stirring means. 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 Ogura as providing a level sensor to the Ogura feeder apparatus, including for example to one or more of the depicted fig. 1 hoppers, so as to provide real-time assessment of material level therein as an additional parameter with which to provide process control. It would further have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the above teachings from JP ’211 as providing the above stirring means to the Ogura feeder apparatus, including again to one or more of the depicted fig. 1 hoppers, so as to improve or increase uniformity of the material supplied downstream.
As to the claim 3 discharge stopping and the claim 4 stirring, it is noted that as presently recited, these pertain to an intended manner by which the claimed apparatus is used as opposed to a limitation distinguishing structurally over what (modified) Ogura discloses or over how the (modified) Ogura apparatus is capable of use.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Hessenbruch (DE 102004051196, machine translation provided herewith cited herein).
As to claim 5, and in addition/alternative to the rejection of claim 3 over Ogura alone as set forth above, it is noted again that Ogura only discloses a sensor 7 for measuring load/amount in association with hopper 8, and also that Ogura is not believed to disclose use of a hopper 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 Ogura as providing a level sensor and shutter to the Ogura feeder apparatus, including for example to one or more of the depicted fig. 1 hoppers, 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 the above-cited shutter.
As to the claim 3 discharge stopping and the claim 5 blocking, it is noted that as presently recited, these pertain to an intended manner by which the claimed apparatus is used as opposed to a limitation distinguishing structurally over what (modified) Ogura discloses or over how the (modified) Ogura apparatus is capable of use.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogura as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Caccia et al. (WO 2020/212868).
As to claims 6-7, Ogura is not believed to disclose multiple of feeder 2 comprising hopper 8, or use of 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 each comprising hoppers 1/5 (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 motivation to similarly utilize multiple of Ogura’s feeders so that distinct raw materials may be fed in tandem, and also as providing a blending device for mixing such distinct materials into a uniform blend, thereby improving or increasing industrial applicability by way of the physical or other properties afforded by said use of distinct materials.
Rejections 2-5
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over a number of additional references of record or hereby added to the record which likewise anticipate, or render obvious, one or more of the pending claims. For example:
US 2004/0099685 is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 for the same or similar reasons set forth in the International Search Report and Written Opinion for corresponding International Application No. PCT/JP2022/038939, both of which were made of record on 12 August 2024. See the corresponding citations taken from JP 2004-520192, for which US 2004/0099685 is an English language equivalent.
US 5,443,772 is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 due to the disclosure of weight-type feeder 10 comprising hopper 14, which feeds material into what may be construed as a volume-type feeder comprising hopper 6 (fig. 1).
WO 2017/179584 is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 due to the disclosure of weight-type feeder 3 comprising a hopper feeding material into what may be construed as a volume-type feeder 2 comprising a hopper (fig. 1).
WO 2020/212868 is believed to anticipate at least claim 1 due to the disclosure of weight-type feeder 1 comprising a hopper feeding material into what may be construed as a volume-type feeder 2 comprising a hopper (fig. 1).
These references should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter.
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