Notice of 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 .
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 1-7,9,12-13,15,17,20,23,and 26 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 roller” in line 5, this is unclear whether “the roller” is the same as “two rollers” additionally it is also unclear how just one roller can squeeze the fluid forward.
Claim 1 further recites “drive it out of the liner bag” this is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claims 2-7,9,12-13,15,17,20,23 recite “an arrangement”, this is indefinite because it is unclear if “an arrangement” is referring to “the container arrangement” of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a liner bag” it is unclear if this is the recited liner bag of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “ (a) Rollerblades” --- based on the specification page 5 line 9, it appears this may be a typo and should just read “(a) Rollers;” appropriate correction required, for examination purposes this term will be treated as reciting the term “Rollers”.
Claim 4 recites “the liner” this lacks antecedent basis. Additionally recites “them” in line 3 and it is unclear what them refers to.
Claim 5 recites “one roller” in line 1, this is unclear because claim 1 recites “two rollers” and claim 4 recites “two rubber coated rollers so it is unclear what one roller is being referred to.
Claim 6 recites “a first roller” and “a second roller” this is unclear because claim 1 recites “two rollers” and claim 4 recites “two rubber coated rollers so it is unclear what one roller is being referred to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the driven roller" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the liner" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the term “them” in line 3, this is unclear as to what “them” refers to.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the liner”, “the rollers”, “the inlet gland” in lines 1-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the arms”, “the influence of gravity”, “the reaction forces”, “the other powered systems”, “the arm” in lines 1-5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the systems”, “the back”, and “the front” in lines 1-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the machine”, “the operator” in lines 2-4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the term “Its” in line 5, this is unclear as to what “its’ refers to.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the decant process”, “the push of a button”, “the arm”, “the puller”, “the empty part”, “the emergency stop button”, “the hood”, “the wall”, “the IBC”, “the outlet gland” in lines 2-8 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 25 recites “drive it out of the liner bag” in line 5 because it is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 26 recites “ a method for emptying” as claimed in claim 1, this is it is unclear whether the claim should be treated as a method claim or an apparatus claim as the method depends from the apparatus of claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,9,12-13,15, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Salva US 2022/01444474.
Regarding claim 1, Salva discloses a container arrangement (figs. 1,2) having an outlet port (4) and a liner bag (2) containing fluid (par 0046), which includes pressure means adapted to create a high pressure within the liner bag (rollers 3 create a high pressure), by means of a force applied to the liner bag (2) and fluid; the force is applied by two rollers (3; figs.1-10) which grip the liner bag (2) at a point furthest from the outlet port (par 0055), then move on an arc towards the outlet port (4); and the roller (3) squeezes the fluid forward and drive it out of the liner bag(2); and wherein the pressure means and the rollers are not mutually enabled (par 0061; figs 4-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
558
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, in which the container arrangement is a liner bag and/or intermediate bulk container (IBC) (liner bag 2 in container 5; figs 2-5; par 0049).
Regarding claim 3, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, in which the arrangement includes the following components:
(a) Rollerblades (interpreted as rollers see 112 rejection above; 3; par 0054);
(b) Air motor (motor 11;par 0056);
(c) Liner puller (winch 1;par 0059);
(d) Pivoting arms (pivoting arms 8; par 0061);
(e) Frame and structure (51; par 0061);
(f) Safety features (limit sensor 7; par 0056);
and/or (g) User interface (operating control 16; par 0078).
Regarding claim 9, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, in which there is some tension in the liner behind the rollers (fig.1 shows tension in the liner 2) for example the part of the liner that has already been emptied and/or in which a liner puller is attached to the inlet gland of the liner by means of a rope or strap, that rope in turn is attached to a roller which is rotated by a ratchet and actuator system (liner is attached to winch 1 which creates tension and a roping of liner bag 2 as rollers 3 act to squeeze; par 0049-0052; figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, in which rollers (3) are placed in a bracket which is attached to the end of pivoting arms (8; par 0061; figs 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, which includes pivoting arms (8) which are actuated up and down, however during decant the arms are not powered, and simply move under the influence of gravity and the reaction forces from the other powered systems and which the arm actuation is only used to bring the arms up to their original position after the decant is finished (figs 1-10; par 0047; 0055-0056; 0061).
Regarding claim 15, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, which includes a frame that supports all the systems and which is mounted on wheels (13) and can be rolled into position over the container arrangement from the back or from the front (51; par 0061;fig.7).
Regarding claim 26, Salva discloses a method for emptying IBC, inner bag arrangements, liquid bags and/or liquid liners which includes a container arrangement as claimed in claim 1 (liner bag 2 in container 5; figs 2-5; par 0049).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salva US 2022/01444474 in view of WO 2020/187203 (hereinafter 203’).
Regarding claim 4, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, which includes two rollers constrained next to each other with the liner passing between them, but fails to explicitly teach that the rollers are rubber-coated.
However 203’, teaches a fluid discharge system and squeezing pusher including a pair of rollers 10 and that they are rubber coated squeezing rollers 14. (translation page 6 par 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the gripping and squeezing rollers as taught by Salva with the rubber coated rollers as taught by document 203’ as a simple substitution between rollers to allow for better grip and elimination from the combined rollers during operation.
Regarding claim 5, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 4, in which the rollers are driven by motor 11 but fails to explicitly teach one roller is driven by an air motor in a forward direction during decant, and a reverse direction briefly after decanting.
However 203’, teaches a fluid discharge system and squeezing pusher including a pair of rollers 10 driven by a motor 21 and controlled by control 26 for forward and reverse rotation and speed of the motor. (translation page 6 par 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the motor of Salva with a simple substitution between motor control to be able to have forward and reverse movement as needed in the rollers.
Regarding claim 6, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 4, Salva fails to explicitly teach the second roller does not drive but is in contact with the first roller and is thus driven to rotate with the driven roller due to friction.
However 203’, teaches a fluid discharge system and squeezing pusher including a pair of rollers 10 driven by a motor 21 and controlled by control 26 for forward and reverse rotation and speed of the motor which is interpreted to be configured to teach the second roller does not drive but is in contact with the first roller and is thus driven to rotate with the driven roller due to friction . (translation page 6 par 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the motor of Salva with a simple substitution between motor control to be able to have forward and reverse movement as needed in the rollers.
Regarding claim 17, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, which includes a hood covering the container arrangement (cover around winch 1 in fig.3) buts fails to explicitly disclose when the machine is in operation to prevent access to moving parts and in which the hood is opened by the operator to set up and remove the liner bag but will be closed while the machine is decanting fluid and returning to its starting position and in which a safety interlock in the hood is adapted to disable all drives and actuators when the hood is open.
However 203’ teaches a mounting structure with a hood arrangement 33 connected with a base 331 and a locking structure for releasably locking the sub bases 310 (translation page 6 par 6-9).which discloses a hood/cover that van be opened or closed, i.e. unlocked or locked to set up access before use.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the frame as taught by Salva and shown in fig 3 with the ability to open and lock the structure to easily access the inside of the machine when needed but also safely close the structure during operation to allow greater operator safety measures.
Claim(s) 7, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salva US 2022/01444474 in view of WO 2020/187203 (hereinafter 203’) in further view of FANG US 2019/0217995.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, in which the rollers are moved apart by hand to allow the liner to be placed between them before decanting and released from their grip after decanting, in which the rollers are closed by hand, but are squeezed together with pneumatic cylinders.
However Fang teaches a squeezing liquid discharge device where the driving device i.e. motor is pneumatic, electric or manual (par 0020; par 0233).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the rollers to be manually or hand adjusted before decanting and released from grip after decanting.
Regarding claim 25, Salva discloses a container (figs 1-2) arrangement having an outlet port (4) and a liner bag (2) containing fluid (par 0046), which includes pressure means (rollers 3) adapted to create a high pressure within the liner bag, by means of a force applied to the liner bag (2) and fluid; the force is applied by two rollers (3; figs 1-10) which grip the liner bag (2) at a point furthest from the outlet port (par 0055), then move on an arc towards the outlet port (4); and the roller (3) squeezes the fluid forward and drive it out of the liner bag (2; par 0061; figs 4-6); Salva fails to explicitly teach wherein the rollers are closed by hand; and wherein the rollers are squeezed together with pneumatic cylinders.
However Fang teaches a squeezing liquid discharge device where the driving device i.e. motor is pneumatic, electric or manual (par 0020; par 0233).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified the rollers to be manually or hand adjusted before decanting and released from grip after decanting.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salva US 2022/01444474 in view of Applicant admitted prior art PPE for discharging the Viscous bulk liquids in folding IBC [Viewed on the internet 31 July 2023] <URL: RRS for discharging the Viscous bulk liquids in folding IBC - You Tube>, published 14 June 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGoKz5viT-U. in further view of WO 2020/187203 (hereinafter 203’).
Regarding claim 20, Salva discloses an arrangement as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach an automatic mode which will begin the decant process with the push of a button and includes an "Auto Start" button and an "Auto Stop" button, and when the 'Auto Start' button is pushed, the rollers begin to rotate forward, the arm will begin to drop under its own weight and the puller will accept slack from the empty part of the liner bag, in which all these processes stop when the emergency stop button is pressed, or when the hood is opened, or when the 'Auto stop' button is pushed, or when a limit switch detects that the arms have reached the end of their 90 degrees arc - implying that the rollers have reached the wall of the IBC near the outlet gland.
However AAPA teaches an arrangement that includes "Auto Start" button and an "Auto Stop" button (time stamp 2:08-2:30 which shows switch), and when the 'Auto Start' button is pushed, the rollers begin to rotate forward, the arm will begin to drop under its own weight and the puller will accept slack from the empty part of the liner bag (time stamp 2:08-3:45),
Further WO 2020/187203 (hereinafter 203’) teaches in which all these processes stop when the emergency stop button is pressed, or when the hood is opened, or when the 'Auto stop' button is pushed, or when a limit switch detects that the arms have reached the end of their 90 degrees arc - implying that the rollers have reached the wall of the IBC near the outlet gland (when the rollers have reached the wall of the IBC a limit switch is triggered automatically shutting off the machine; par 0066).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified Salva with the auto start switch as disclosed above and the safety limit switch as taught by 203’ in order to be able to easily and automatically start and stop operation of the motor control as taught by AAPA and reference 203’ respectively for greater operator control and safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0601. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9am -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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 5712701926. 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.
/MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights