Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/848,711

PORTIONING UNIT

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 19, 2024
Examiner
ZADEH, BOB
Art Unit
3754
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Thermoplay S P A
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
601 granted / 783 resolved
+6.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
809
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 783 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
+69DETAILED 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 9/19/2024 has been entered. Claim Objections The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: A double inclusion limitation appears for the following terms that has been cited previously: In claim 1, line 8-9; and in claim 16, line 4, for "a specific volume". In claim 1, lines 9 and 12; in claim 8, line 3; in claim 16 line 4, for “plastic material”. In claims 15-16, in line 1, for “a portioning unit”. Appropriate corrections are 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. 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 8-10 and 13-14 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 13, the term “in particular” and in claims 8 and 14, the term “essentially” indicate a broad range or limitation followed by linking terms (in particular, essentially) and a narrow range or limitation within the broad range or limitation is considered indefinite since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Claim 7 recite "at least one charge separation unit", and further claims 8-9 recite "charge separation units" and “charge separation unit” respectively. It is unclear if "charge separation units" and “charge separation unit” is/are particular one of the “at least one charge separation unit”, or if there is only one charge separation unit or if this is a distinct charge separation unit separate from the "at least one charge separation unit”. 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 and 11-16 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 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 a specific volume of 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 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 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). 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 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, in particular the supply block is manufactured by an additive process ([0018]). Regarding claim 14, Otto is silent in disclosing a diameter of the second piston is essentially equal to a diameter of the discharge opening ([0023], see the needle part 162 of the piston rod), Regarding claim 15, Otto discloses a compression molding device comprising a portioning unit according to claim 1 ([0002]). Regarding claim 16, Otto discloses method of operating a 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) a specific volume of 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 teaches first housing that charges plastic material through individual discharge opening having a specific volume (via 184, see fig.4). Otto is silent in disclosing several first housings of charge separation units are arranged parallel next to each other for an essentially simultaneous separation of several charges of plastic material through individual discharge openings each charge having a specific volume, said first housings being respectively interconnected to a second housing of a common supply block. 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. State of the Prior Arts Regarding claim 1, the prior arts to Otto (DE 1679798 B1), Goessling (US 2,359,840), Harkenrider (US 2,737,686), Noresson (CA 2230136 A1), Walton (EP 0161614 A2) and Weyand (US 2008/0042324) as cited in PTO-892, either individually or in combination are disclosing/teaching significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a portioning unit having first chamber, interconnected to an extrusion unit by a first valve, and a first piston arranged in the first chamber displaceable in a longitudinal direction of the first chamber to receive a specific volume of plastic material from the extrusion unit by the first valve; a second chamber having an inlet opening, which is in fluid connection with the first chamber by a second valve to receive plastic material from the first chamber through the second valve and a second piston displaceable in a longitudinal direction of the second chamber to discharge the specific volume from the portioning unit through a discharge opening by displacing the second piston from an extended position to a retracted position. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600534
Spout Connector Reinforcement Ring Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600614
PRESSURE REGULATOR AND SPARKLING WATER MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600535
Dual Lid Canister Assembly with a Pour Spout
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600557
METERING VALVE HAVING AN IMPROVED METERING CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588776
A DISPENSING ARRANGEMENT FOR DISPENING DRY OR SEMI-DRY PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 783 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month