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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (i.e., claim(s) 1-12) without traverse in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner withdraws the restriction of Species A1-A3 and B1-B2 in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments filed on 05/14/2026. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-12 is/are examined herein and claims 13-21 are withdrawn as being drawn to the nonelected group.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “supply source (18) comprises a water heat exchanger in fluid communication with the inlet stretch (17a) and the outlet stretch (17b) for cooling the fluid coming from the outlet stretch (17b) and feeding the cooled fluid to said inlet stretch (17a)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “plurality of elements (7)” should be changed to --plurality of transport elements (7)--. Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
Claim 1, “each element (7)” should be changed to --each transport element (7)--. Consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims.
Claim 2, “unit (12) for blowing a flow of cooling air, for directing” should be changed to --unit (12) configured for blowing a flow of cooling air and for directing--.
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(s) 1-12 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a mould (5) for receiving said doses (D) and making concave objects” which is indefinite because it can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the mold receives the doses at the same time which is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. According to [0051] and Fig. 3, the mold (5) is only configured for receiving a dose (D) and making a concave object at a time. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --a mould (5) for receiving said doses (D) and making concave objects in succession--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dispensing device (7)” which is indefinite because it contradicts the limitations “dispensing device (2)” and “elements (7)”. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the dispensing device (2)--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “between a picking up condition wherein the wall (9) has a respective surface (9a) for contact with the dose (D) transversal to the advancement direction (A) to intercept and pick up the dose (D) from the dispensing device (2), and a condition for releasing the dose (D) wherein the wall (9) is overturned with the contact surface (9a) facing the mould (5) for releasing the dose (D) in the mould (5) by gravity” which is indefinite. The language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The language appears to be missing grammatical punctuations/commas or proper transitions to clarify the scope of the conditions. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --between a picking up condition in which the wall (9) has a respective surface (9a) for contact with the dose (D) transversal to the advancement direction (A) to intercept and pick up the dose (D) from the dispensing device (2) and a condition for releasing the dose (D) in which the wall (9) is overturned with the contact surface (9a) facing the mould (5) for releasing the dose (D) in the mould (5) by gravity--.
Claim(s) 2-12 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said blowing unit (12) to be cooled by the unit (12)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “said blowing unit (12)” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --said unit (12) to be cooled by the unit (12)--.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 2 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “one stretch (T1) of the closed path (C)” which is indefinite because it contradicts the limitation “at least in a zone (T1, T2)” of claim 1. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the zone (T1) of the closed path (C)”
Claim 4 recites the limitation “along said stretch (T1) of the closed path (C) interposed between the mould (5) and the dispensing device (2) wherein the walls (9) are in the respective release condition” which is indefinite. The recitation “said stretch (T1)” contradicts the limitation “at least in a zone (T1, T2)” of claim 1. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the walls” in the claim(s). Additionally, not all the walls of the elements (7) are provided in the zone (T1) in Applicant’s disclosure. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --along said zone (T1) of the closed path (C) interposed between the mould (5) and the dispensing device (2), wherein the wall (9) is in the respective release condition--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said cooling means (11) comprise a plurality of holes (10) for the suction and/or blowing of the dose (D) made in the contact surface (9a)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the suction and/or blowing of the dose (D)” in the claim(s). It is also unclear if the contact surface (9a) and its holes (10) are part of the transfer element or the cooling means. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --said contact surface (9a) comprising a plurality of holes (10) in fluid communication with the cooling means (11), and the plurality of holes (10) configured for allowing suction or blowing of the dose (D) during cooling by said cooling means (11)--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “along the circumferential path (C)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the circumferential path (C)” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --along the closed path (C)--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said passage duct (17)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “said passage duct (17)” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --said duct (17)--. Claim 8 has been examined below as if it depends from claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the cooling fluid” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the cooling fluid” in the claim(s). Claim 8 has been examined below as if it depends from claim 7 which introduces the indefinite limitations.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 8 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “through a channel (21) for feeding the cold fluid formed in the carousel; said channel (21) allowing the passage of cooled fluid to the inlet stretch (17a) during the entire path (C) of the transport element (7)” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the cool fluid” in the claim(s). It is unclear if the recited “cooling fluid”, “cold fluid” and “cooled fluid” are the same or different fluids. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --through a channel (21) for feeding the cooling fluid formed in the carousel; said channel (21) allowing the passage of the cooling fluid to the inlet stretch (17a) during the entire closed path (C) of the transport element (7)--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “through a channel (21) for feeding cold fluid made in the carousel; wherein said feed channel has at least one curved cavity (22) corresponding to a respective angular sector (T2) of the path (C); said feed channel (21) allowing the passage of cooled fluid towards the inlet stretch (17a) only when the element (7) is at the angular sector (T2) of said closed path (C)” which is indefinite. It is unclear if the recited “cooling fluid”, “cold fluid” and “cooled fluid” are the same or different fluids. The inconsistent term for (21) makes the scope of the limitation unclear. The recitation “respective angular sector (T2) of the path (C)” contradicts the limitation “at least in a zone (T1, T2) of the closed path (C)” of claim 1. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --through a feed channel (21) for feeding the cooling fluid made in the carousel; wherein said feed channel (21) has at least one curved cavity (22) corresponding to the zone (T2) of the closed path (C); said feed channel (21) allowing the passage of the cooling fluid towards the inlet stretch (17a) only when the element (7) is at the zone (T2) of said closed path (C), wherein the zone (T2) is an angular sector--.
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.
(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) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aldigeri (WO 2021074887 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Aldigeri (WO 2021074887 A1 – of record) discloses an apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 6) comprising:
a dispensing device (2) for dispensing doses (10) of polymeric material in a shape suitable for compression moulding (pg. 3, pg. 11, pg. 22 , Fig.6 );
a mould (6) for receiving said doses (10) in succession and making concave objects (pg. 9-10, pg. 14, claim 1, and Fig. 6);
a plurality of elements (9) for transporting respective doses, each of which configured for picking up the respective dose (10) from the dispensing device and releasing the doses to said mould (pg. 18, pg. 22, pg. 24, claim 1, Fig. 6);
a carousel (8) for supporting said transport elements (9) for feeding each element (9) in an advancement direction (R1) and along a closed path (P1) passing between the dispensing device and the mould, so as to move the dose to the mould (pg. 13, pg. 17, claim 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 6);
wherein each transport element (9) comprises a wall (38) for engaging the dose rotatably mounted on the carousel (8) between a picking up condition (CP) in which the wall has a respective surface for contact with the dose transversal to the advancement direction to intercept and pick up the dose from the dispensing device and a condition (PA) for releasing the dose in which the wall is overturned with the contact surface facing the mould for releasing the dose in the mould by gravity (pg. 23-25, claim 18, Fig. 6);
wherein the apparatus comprises cooling means of each transport element for cooling said transport element at least in a zone of the closed path (air supplying means capable of coiling the conveying surface 38 of each transport element 9 to avoid that the conveying surface 38 is excessively heated due to the heat released from the dose 10: page 29, lines 4-27).
Regarding claim 2, Aldigeri further discloses wherein said cooling means comprise at least one unit for blowing a flow of cooling air and for directing said flow towards the wall in the respective release condition (blowing means capable of flowing a flow of cooling air and for directing said flow towards the wall 38 in the respective release condition);
said wall in the release condition having a planar extension facing said unit to be cooled by the unit upstream of the dispensing device (page 28, line 31 to pg. 29 line 27, Fig. 6: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 6, Aldigeri further discloses wherein said cooling means comprise a plurality of holes (51) for suction and/or blowing of the dose made in the contact surface; said holes allowing the passage of air to cool the wall during the suction and/or blowing of the dose (page 28, line 31 to pg. 29 line 27, Fig. 6: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 7, Aldigeri further discloses wherein said cooling means comprise a duct for the passage of a cooling fluid formed inside said wall for cooling the wall along the circumferential path (C) and in the respective pick-up and/or release conditions (implicitly disclosed as internal ducts are implicitly required in the wall 38 to provide fluid communication between 51 and the air source: page 28, line 31 to pg. 29 line 27, Fig. 6: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
said cooling means comprise a plurality of holes (51) for suction and/or blowing of the dose made in the contact surface; said holes allowing the passage of air to cool the wall during the suction and/or blowing of the dose (page 28, line 31 to pg. 29 line 27, Fig. 6: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldigeri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pucci (US 20030198708 – of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, Aldigeri fails to disclose wherein said unit has a manifold having an arc shaped extension parallel to the zone of the closed path interposed between the mould and the dispensing device in the advancement direction of the transport elements.
In the same filed of endeavor, apparatuses for compression molding, Pucci discloses the technique of providing a manifold (Fig. 4) having an arc shaped extension parallel to a zone of a closed path interposed between a mould (2) and a dispensing device (8) in an advancement direction of transport elements (7: P0028-0032, 0036, 0043, Fig. 1), said manifold having at least one nozzle (17) for discharging a flow of air towards walls of the transport elements (P0038, Figs. 1 and 7), wherein the manifold has a plurality of nozzles (17) spaced from each other for dispensing respective flows of air along said zone of the closed path interposed between the mould and the dispensing device (P0036, 0038, Figs. 1 and 7), wherein the wall(s) of at least one transport element 7 is in a respective release condition of the dose towards the mold (Fig. 1) as a suitable thermal conditioning device for doses while being transported/released. While Pucci mentions hot air as the air (P0043, 0061), Pucci teaches that the temperature of the air fed can be adjusted to a desired/optimum temperate (P0041, 0043). Furthermore, the term “the thermal conditioning of the doses” implies/suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art cooling and/or heating of the doses. Thus, Pucci further suggests the usage of cooling air if desired.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Aldigeri in view of Pucci by incorporating the manifold of Pucci as part of said blowing and using cooling air to arrive at claimed invention for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of using a suitable/known thermal conditioning/blowing air device for doses while being transported/released by transport elements and achieving a desired/optimum temperate of the doses as suggested by Pucci. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldigeri in view of Pucci as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bauchot (US 20150208553 – of record).
Regarding claim 5, Pucci further discloses wherein said manifold has internally a duct (14) for passage of the cooling air for putting in fluid communication … with said nozzles (P0038, Figs. 6-7).
However, the combination, as applied to claim 4 above, fails to disclose wherein said cooling means comprise a water heat exchanger for cooling the air upstream of the manifold.
However, the incorporation of water heat exchangers for cooling air systems is known/desirable.
In an analogous, cooling of an air system, Bauchot discloses the technique of incorporating a water heat exchanger (128) for cooling air upstream of an air outlet (123) for the benefit(s) of controlling/adjusting temperature of the cooling air (Abstract, P0013, 0047-0050, Fig. 1).
Since Pucci teaches that the temperature of the air fed can be adjusted to a desired/optimum temperate (P0041, 0043), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of the combination in view of ordinary knowledge and/or Bauchot by incorporating a water heat exchanger configured for cooling the cooling air upstream of the manifold to arrive at the claimed invention for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of controlling/adjusting temperature of the cooling air as predicted by a person of ordinary skill in the art and/or Bauchot. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8-12, the prior art of record, alone or in combination. fails to disclose or suggest “wherein said duct comprises: an inlet stretch (17a) for feeding the cooling fluid from a source (18) for supplying the fluid inside the wall (9); an outlet stretch (17b) for the fluid heated inside the wall (9) so that the fluid flows out towards the outside of the wall (9); and a plurality of heat exchange stretches (17c) extending between said inlet stretch (17a) and outlet stretch (17b); said fluid in the heat exchange stretches (17c) absorbing the heat transferred from the dose (D) to reduce the temperature of the wall (9)” as set forth in claim 8. No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combining to render the claimed invention obvious. In addition, the claimed combination of limitations yields the advantage(s) of removing heat from the wall internally and more effectively and/or preventing sticking of the dose to the wall (P004-0005 of Applicant’s published application).
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Parrinello (US 20210331356 – of record) discloses a relevant apparatus (Figs. 2-3 and accompanying text). Parrinello further discloses/suggests the step of cooling each transport element (11) during the step of advancing the elements in at least a zone of a closed path (P0084, Fig. 3) for the benefit(s) of preventing adhesion of dose to the transport elements (P0084).
Rote (US 5811044) discloses a relevant cooling means configured for cooling transport elements (Figs. 6-10 and accompanying text).
Parrinello (US 20070196531) discloses a relevant cooling means configured for cooling contact surface of transport elements (P0087-0088, 0241-0242, Fig. 26 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights