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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 6/30/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otto (DE 1679798 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Otto discloses a portioning unit (fig.1-10) interconnectable in a compression molding machine downstream to an outlet (184) of an extrusion unit to receive from the extrusion unit a plastic material and to separate charges therefrom having a specific volume, the portioning unit ([0031], see attached translation) comprising: a first chamber (40a), interconnected to the extrusion unit by a first valve (51), and a first piston (48) arranged in the first chamber displaceable in a longitudinal direction of the first chamber configured to receive the specific volume of the plastic material from the extrusion unit by the first valve ([0010], [0016]); a second chamber (182) having an inlet opening (180), which is in fluid connection with the first chamber by a second valve (166 on 180), configured to receive the plastic material from the first chamber through the second valve (see fig.4) and a second piston (166) displaceable in a longitudinal direction of the second chamber to discharge the specific volume ([0014-0016]) from the portioning unit through a discharge opening (184) by displacing the second piston from an extended position to a retracted position (see fig.4-5); and wherein a diameter of the second piston is equal to a diameter of the discharge opening (the lower portion 162 of the piston 160 has a diameter similar to the outlet 184).
Regarding claim 2, Otto discloses the first piston and the second piston are arranged laterally spaced apart from each other or the first piston and the second piston are arranged coaxially to each other (see fig.4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Otto discloses the first piston forms part of the first valve (see 51, 40a and 48 ).
Regarding claim 4, Otto discloses the second piston forms part of the second valve (see 166 and 180).
Regarding claim 5, Otto discloses the extended position of the first piston is defined by a mechanical stop (see the ring above spring 52 blocked by 122 in fig.4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Otto discloses the portioning unit comprises at least one charge separation unit having a first housing which is fluidly interconnected downstream to a second housing of a supply block (via 38 and 39).
Regarding claim 9, Otto discloses the first housing of the at least one charge separation unit comprises a first block housing the first chamber (40a in 122) and a second block housing the second chamber (182 in 178) being fluidly and thermally interconnected to the first block (see connection between 178 and 122).
Regarding claim 11, Otto discloses in the second piston comprises an air tube (25) ending in an end surface of the second piston for pneumatically separating the plastic material from the portioning unit during discharge (see fig.2-3, via 56, 58).
Regarding claim 12, Otto discloses the first piston is interconnected to a first actuator for displacing the first piston between the extended position and the retracted position and the second piston is interconnected to a second actuator for displacing the second piston (see fig.1, via lever arm 59, 55 and 49).
Regarding claim 13, Otto discloses the portioning unit is at least partially manufactured by an additive process ([0018]).
Regarding claim 15, Otto discloses a compression molding device comprising the portioning unit according to claim 1 ([0002]).
Regarding claim 16, Otto discloses method of operating the portioning unit according to claim 1 (see claim 1 in above), the method comprising the steps: opening the first valve (51); receiving in the first chamber (40a) the specific volume of the plastic material from the extrusion unit; closing the first valve; opening the second valve (166 on 180); displacing the first piston from the extended position into the retracted position, thereby pushing the plastic material from the first chamber into the second chamber (9); and displacing the second piston from the extended position into the retracted position, thereby pushing the plastic material through the discharge opening (see operation of the pistons in fig.4 and 5).
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto (DE 1679798 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Otto is silent in disclosing a position of the mechanical stop is adjustable in longitudinal direction. Instead, Otto teaches the ring above spring 52 is blocked by 122. The blockage of the ring is based on the height of piston 51 in opening and closing the passage 50 (see fig.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an adjustable mechanical stop, since the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Otto is silent in disclosing the at least one charge separation unit includes a plurality of charge separation units, wherein several first housings of the charge separation units are arranged parallel next to each other for a simultaneous separation of several charges of the plastic material through individual discharge openings each charge having the specific volume, said first housings being respectively interconnected to a second housing of a common supply block. Instead, Otto teaches first housing that charges plastic material through individual discharge opening having a specific volume (via 184, see fig.4, [0014-0016]). At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the number of the first housings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Otto is silent to disclose a third block is fluidly interconnected upstream to the first block and houses the first valve. Instead, Otto teaches the first valve (51) and first chamber (40a) are located within the first block (122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to make a third block by defragmenting the first block (dividing 122, see fig.4) as such to include the first valve (51), since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the quantity of material received by the first chamber differs from the quantity of material L discharged from the exit end of the dispensing channel. Applicant is referred to paragraphs [0014-0016] of the attached translation. See fig.4-5, each cycle of piston 48 receives the same amount of plastic L from channel 41 and dispenses the same amount of plastic L from 40a into 182 and out of the outlet 184. Further, Applicant argues that Otto fails to teach a second piston, the diameter of which is generally the same as the diameter of the outlet opening. Examiner refers to the total length of the piston configuration that includes elements 166, 162 and 164. At least the piston part 162 has a diameter that corresponds to the outlet opening 184. In order to overcome the prior art to Otto, Applicant is advised to define the uniform diameter of the piston from the actuator end to the outlet end.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights