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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Regarding claim 1, the term “sub-chamber not connected to the discharge outlet” is used by the claim to mean “sub-chamber is separated from the discharge outlet by the movable plate,” while the accepted meaning is “there is no path between the sub-chamber and the discharge outlet.” A space can be connected to another space by means of intermediate passages, walls, doors, partitions or dividers. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 recites that the controller controls the time for the opening and closing states of the movable plate “according to an amount of feeding materials fed to the hopper”; the term “according to an amount” does not distinctly describe the limits of the subject matter of the claim.
Claim 5 recites both an apparatus and a process of using the apparatus. When both an apparatus and a method are claimed in the same claim it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(p).
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai (WO 2014167594).
Regarding claim 1, Nagai discloses
an openable and closable discharge outlet (Nagai, Fig 4, left and right discharge gates 42 and 43); and
a partition plate (Nagai, Fig. 9, partition 95) that divides an inside of the hopper into a main storage chamber (Nagai, Fig. 9, assembly hopper 21) connected to the discharge outlet (Nagai, Fig. 9, discharge gates 28 and 29) and
a sub-storage chamber (Nagai, Fig. 9, left and right storage chambers 23 and 24)not connected to the discharge outlet,
at least a part of the partition plate being a movable plate (Nagai, Fig. 9, discharge gates 28 and 29) that is switchable between an opening state of opening a sub-discharge passage extending from the sub-storage chamber to the discharge outlet and a blocking state of blocking the sub-discharge passage (Nagai, Fig. 16, discharge gates 68 and 69).
Regarding claim 2, Nagai discloses
in discharging, the movable plate is switched from the blocking state to the opening state after the discharge outlet is opened (Nagai, Fig. 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As regards claim 3, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the most pertinent prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests using two independently-movable gates to partition the chamber of a hopper into sections where the main and two side chambers can be sequentially emptied and that after the main central chamber is emptied, the gate for each side chamber separately opens and allows for full-flow passage of the contents of the each side chamber, thus removing any support for the bridging of material across the inlet area of the hopper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hausler et al. (US 4420073) discloses an apparatus for filter rod sections with a movable gate which oscillates to prevent jamming of material in the discharge opening.
Liu (CN 216272065 U) discloses a hopper with two movable baffles for preventing blanking/blockage.
Johnson (US 4529085 A1) discloses an anti-blocking hopper with two movable baffles/gates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL whose telephone number is (571)305-5217. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00a-4:30p Fri 7:00a-11:00p.
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.
/ALAN RAYMOND ETZEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights