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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 13, 15 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the phrase “a hopper having a material feed opening configured to receive insulation material” should be changed “a hopper having a material feed opening configured to receive the insulation material”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “an auger disposed in the hopper and configured to conduct insulation material” should be changed “an auger disposed in the hopper and configured to conduct the insulation material”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the inlet of the blower being configured to receiving insulation material from the hopper and to blow it through the outlet of the blower” should be changed “the inlet of the blower being configured to receiving the insulation material from the hopper and to blow the insulation material through the outlet of the blower”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “the plate is configured to preferentially admit insulation material below a threshold size into the blower and preferentially reject insulation material above the threshold size” should be changed “the plate is configured to preferentially admit the insulation material below a threshold size into the blower and preferentially reject the insulation material above the threshold size”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “convey insulation material” should be changed “convey the insulation material”.
Regrading claim 15, the claim should be re-written as following:
A method of processing the insulation material using the system of claim 1, the method comprising:
introducing loosefill insulation material into the hopper;
conditioning the loosefill insulation material by contacting with one or more of the chopping blades to reduce the size of the insulation material;
conveying, via the auger, the reduced-size insulation material to the outlet of the hopper;
sizing, using the plate, the reduced-size insulation material to admit the insulation material below the threshold size into the blower and reject the insulation material above the threshold size;
reintroducing the rejected insulation material to the hopper and contacting the rejected insulation material with at least one of the chopping blades.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “density of insulation material” should be changed “density of the insulation material”.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 "the size" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the phrase " preferentially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-20 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “one or more apertures of the plate” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “one or more apertures of the plate” is the same as or different from “a plurality of apertures” that recited in claim 1 which claim 4 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “one or more apertures of the plate” is the same as m “a plurality of apertures” that recited in claim 1
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “the one or more chopping blades” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the one or more chopping blades” is the same as or different from “at least one chopping blade” that recited in claim 1 which claim 14 depends from.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “the one or more chopping blades” is the same as “at least one chopping blade” that recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “introducing loosefill insulation material” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “introducing loosefill insulation material” is the same as or different from “insulation fibers” that recited in the preamble of the same claim 15.
As best understood and for the purpose of the examination the Examiner interpreted “introducing loosefill insulation material” is the same as “insulation fibers” that recited in the preamble of the same claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US20100219273A1) in view of Woten (US5788163A).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a system for processing insulation material (abstract and paragraph 0002), comprising:
a hopper (fig.4: (12)) having a material feed opening (fig.4: (18)) configured to receive insulation material and an outlet (fig.4: the outlet between elements (26) and (92));
at least one chopping blade (fig.4: (24)) disposed in the hopper, configured to reduce the size of insulation material disposed therein;
an auger (fig.4: (26)) disposed in the hopper and configured to conduct insulation material received in the material feed opening of the hopper to the outlet of the hopper;
a blower (fig.4: (28)) having an inlet (fig.4: (92)) coupled to the outlet of the hopper and an outlet (fig.3: (32)), the inlet of the blower being configured to receiving insulation material from the hopper and to blow it through the outlet of the blower;
Regarding claims 1-5, Johnson does not disclose a plate operatively disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower, the plate defining a plurality of apertures, wherein (a) the plate is configured to preferentially admit insulation material below a threshold size into the blower and preferentially reject insulation material above the threshold size for reintroduction to the hopper and contact with at least one of the chopping blades; and/or (b) the apertures of the plate have a maximum dimension no greater than the threshold size; a slide gate movable between a first position and a second position, wherein the slide gate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower to allow material flow therebetween when in the first position, and to block material flow therebetween when in the second position; wherein the slide gate is further movable to a plurality of positions between the first position and the second position; wherein the slide gate is configured to slide to block one or more apertures of the plate when in the second position; and wherein the plate is coupled to the slide gate such that the plate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower when the slide gate is in the first position, and wherein the slide gate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower when in the second position.
Woten teaches a plate (fig.3: (106) and (108)) operatively disposed between an outlet of a hopper (fig.3: (40)) and an inlet of a blower (fig.3: (38)), the plate defining a plurality of apertures (fig.3: (102) and (1040), wherein (a) the plate is configured to preferentially admit insulation material below a threshold size into the blower; and/or (b) the apertures of the plate have a maximum dimension no greater than the threshold size (col.6 lines 15-39); and
a slide gate (fig.5: (100) and (112)) movable between a first position and a second position, wherein the slide gate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower to allow material flow therebetween when in the first position, and to block material flow therebetween when in the second position
Both of the prior arts of Johnson and Woten are related to a system for processing insulation material;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Johnson to have the configuration of the plate and a slide gate as taught by Woten, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having a plate operatively disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower, the plate defining a plurality of apertures, wherein (a) the plate is configured to preferentially admit insulation material below a threshold size into the blower and preferentially reject insulation material above the threshold size for reintroduction to the hopper and contact with at least one of the chopping blades; and/or (b) the apertures of the plate have a maximum dimension no greater than the threshold size; a slide gate movable between a first position and a second position, wherein the slide gate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower to allow material flow therebetween when in the first position, and to block material flow therebetween when in the second position; wherein the slide gate is further movable to a plurality of positions between the first position and the second position; wherein the slide gate is configured to slide to block one or more apertures of the plate when in the second position; and wherein the plate is coupled to the slide gate such that the plate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower when the slide gate is in the first position, and wherein the slide gate is disposed between the outlet of the hopper and the inlet of the blower when in the second position.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson discloses wherein the auger comprises a shaft with an axis about which the auger rotates (figs.4-5: (26)); and a helical flighting mounted to the shaft and a set of paddles mounted to the shaft and disposed proximate to the outlet of the hopper, wherein the set of paddles are configured to engage the insulation material received from the auger to place in communication with the plate, and to convey insulation material that is rejected by the plate toward one or more of the chopping blades.
Therefore, the modification of Johnson in view of Woten teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Johnson discloses wherein the one or more chopping blades (figs.4-5: (24)) are disposed on one or more rotatable shafts disposed within the hopper, wherein the one or more chopping blades advance conditioned material to the auger.
Therefore, the modification of Johnson in view of Woten teaches the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the method steps recited in claim 15 would be met during the normal operation of the apparatus disclosed by Johnson in view of Woten. It is inherent method of use of Johnson in view of Woten system.
Regarding claims 7, 9-12 and 16-20, Johnson in view of Woten does not disclose the limitations of claims 7-12;
However, choosing the size of the apertures of the screen would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result in order to have products with specific properties as desired.
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the limitations of claims 7-12 in order to meet a specific requirement of the process as desired so as to have products with specific properties as desired.
Claim 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US20100219273A1) in view of Woten (US5788163A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of William (US2833484A).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Johnson in view of Woten does not disclose wherein at least one of the apertures is defined by a polygon having a serrated profile on at least one side, wherein the serrated profile elongates the material prior to being admitted to the blower; and herein the first aperture is further defined by a serrated profile.
William teaches apertures are defined by a polygon having a serrated profile on at least one side (col.1 last 14 kines-col.2 line 33),
Both of the prior arts of Johnson and William are related to a system having a screen;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the apertures of the apparatus of Johnson in view of Woten to be defined by a polygon having a serrated profile on at least one side as taught by William in order to prevent blinding or plugging of the screen (William: col.1 last 14 kines-col.2 line 33). Thereby having wherein at least one of the apertures is defined by a polygon having a serrated profile on at least one side, wherein the serrated profile elongates the material prior to being admitted to the blower; and herein the first aperture is further defined by a serrated profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights