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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/11/24 are informal, since the letters, numbers and lead lines appear to be hand drawn and are not uniform in nature in the Figure.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On Page 17, line 1, “EDP” is referenced as 40 and in lines 2 and 3, “control” is also referenced as 40.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Apparently “EPC” should be “EDP”. Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the linear drive" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11 – 15 and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (2374553).
Regarding claim 11, the Miller reference discloses a method for filling a container (10) of standardized geometry with clay, comprising the steps of:
a) extruding the clay by an extruder (21);
b) pumping the clay plasticized by the extruder and an outlet of the extruder by a pump and/or by pressure built up in the clay by the extruder (page 5, left col., lines 46 – 49) through a conduit (43) into an outlet opening (243) at an underside of a piston element (244, 251) adapted to fit through an opening of the container (10) and into an interior of the container, which is essentially cylindrical with a cross-section of the interior essentially constant along a cylinder axis and the opening (e.g., see Figures 17 and 37);
c) guiding the piston element in a direction of the cylinder axis by a device (258) with a drive (i.e. pneumatic (air)) designed to exert pressure against the clay introduced under the piston element into the container. See page 7, right column, lines 53 – 74; and page 9, left column, lines 21 – 41.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the piston element is adapted to the geometry of the container so that in step c) an annular gap is formed between the piston element and a cylindrical inner sleeve surface of the container. See page 3, right column, lines 2 – 15.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the annular gap between the piston element and the cylindrical inner sleeve surface of the container is sealed by a seal (51b), or is used for ventilation without a seal. See Figure 17 and page 3, right column, lines 2 – 15.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the annular gap between the piston element and the cylindrical inner sleeve surface of the container is sealed by a seal and negative pressure is produced in the container and/or under the piston element by a vacuum pump for venting (inherent). See page 3, left column, lines 60 – 67; and page 7, right column, lines 20 – 23.
Regarding claim 15, wherein the conduit (43) has a pipe section (180) in which a static and/or a dynamic mixer (182, 183; page 6, right column, lines 19 – 35) is arranged.
Regarding claim 17, wherein the pump and/or a flange between the extruder and the pump and/or the conduit and/or the pipe section at least in sections and/or the piston plate and/or the bottom and/or the lateral surface of the container is temperature regulated at least in regions by a heating device (i.e., steam). See page 9, right column, lines 30 – 34.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the pump is a screw-spindle pump (183).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the linear drive is a pneumatic cylinder (258). See page 9, left column, lines 21 – 41
Regarding claim 20, container (mold 10) is a cylindrical container filled with clay according to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller.
Regarding claim 16, the Miller reference further discloses wherein pressure in the clay is measured at the extruder outlet and at the pump inlet and a pressure difference is calculated by an EPC and the pressure in the extruder is regulated by a control with the pressure difference as a controlled variable and pump speed as a manipulated variable. See page 8, lines 6 – 38. Miller doesn’t disclose the controller being a computer system. The Examiner takes Official Notice that modern systems are well known to be controlled by computer systems (i.e., EDPs) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ a computer system in place of the electrical system on the Miller device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Oyer reference (2539319) discloses another clay dispensing device having an extruder (21), container (4) and pistons (5, 24).
The Wollett reference (2959900) discloses another clay dispensing device (Fig. 1) having an extruder (22), piston (36) and container (11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights