DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of multiple legal languages “comprises, said and means” throughout the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
I- In claim 1, line 6, “material” is positively recited for a second time. This renders the claim confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
II- In claim 9, line 3, “material” is positively recited for a second time. This renders the claim confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
III- In claim 11, line 2, “material” is positively recited for a second time. This renders the claim confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
IV- In claim 14, line 4, “material” is positively recited for a second time. This renders the claim confusing as it raises issues of double inclusion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muller et al. 11,577,425.
Muller et al. disclose a device (1) for linear distribution of a material, which comprises a reservoir (5) mounted for movement about an axis defining a longitudinal direction, the reservoir delimiting a storage cavity and being provided with a first opening for the entry of material into the cavity (col. 9, ll. 20-29) and a second opening (7) in the form of a longitudinal slot for the exit of material from the cavity; and means (19) for driving the reservoir in an oscillating movement about the axis; at least one flow-disrupting element (17) accommodated inside the storage cavity; at least one element (17) for fluidizing the material inside the storage cavity; deflectors (13a, 13b) arranged outside the reservoir and configured to guide the material out of the second opening;
a material feed device (27) configured to deliver material through an outlet; a receiving device (construction field) arranged to receive the material distributed by the linear distribution device (col. 9, ll. 20-39). The device shown by Muller et al. will perform the method recited in claims 13-14, 17 during normal operational use of the device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. 11,577,425.
Muller et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a ratio between a length of the first opening and a length of the second opening is between 0.1 and 0.5. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the length of the first opening and the length of the second opening of Muller et al. with a ratio between 0.1 and 0.5 because applicants have not disclosed that having a ratio between 0.1 and 0.5 provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the first and second openings of Muller et al., and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the openings taught by Muller et al. or the claimed a ratio between the length of the first opening and the length of the second opening to be between 0.1 and 0.5 because both openings dimensions would perform the same function of transporting the material from the inlet to the outlet. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Muller et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Muller et al.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. 11,577,425.
Muller et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that a width of the second opening is greater than 3 times an average particle diameter of the material. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the second opening of Muller et al. to have a width greater than 3 times an average particle diameter of the material because applicants have not disclosed that having
the width of the second opening to be greater than 3 times an average particle diameter of the material provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the width of the second opening of Muller et al., and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the width taught by Muller et al. or the claimed a width of the second opening is greater than 3 times an average particle diameter of the material because both widths dimensions would perform the same function of allowing the flow of the material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Muller et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Muller et al.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. 11,577,425 in view of Ederer et al. 2008/0260945.
Muller et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that at least one sensor configured to measure at least one parameter representative of an amount of material inside the storage cavity. Ederer al. teach the use of a sensor for measuring material level (col. 2, para. [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the device of Muller et al. to have a fill sensor as taught by Ederer et al. in (col. 2, para, 0036]), in order to monitor the level of the material.
12. Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. 11,577,425.
Muller et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that an angle of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis is greater than 5 degrees and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 19. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the angle of oscillation of the reservoir of Muller et al. to be about the axis greater than 5 degrees and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 19 because applicants have not disclosed that having an angle of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis greater than 5 degrees and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 19 provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the angle of oscillation of the reservoir of Muller et al., and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the angle of oscillating taught by Muller et al. or the claimed an angle of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis is greater than 5 degrees and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 19 because both angle of oscillation would perform the same function of transporting the material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Muller et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 15 and 19 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Muller et al.
13. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. 11,577,425.
Muller et al. have taught all the features of the claimed invention except that the frequency of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis is at least 0.5Hz and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 20. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the frequency of oscillation of the reservoir of Muller et al. to be about the axis at least 0.5Hz and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 20 because applicants have not disclosed that having the frequency of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis at least 0.5Hz and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 20 provide an advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solve a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the frequency of oscillation of the reservoir of Muller et al. and applicants’ invention, to perform equally well with either the frequency of oscillation of the reservoir taught by Muller et al. or the claimed a frequency of oscillation of the reservoir about the axis at least 0.5Hz and as well as the claimed subject matter in claim 20 because both frequencies would perform the same function of vibrating the material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Muller et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 16 and 20 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Muller et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 3-4, 10, 12 are 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.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants' disclosure.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK C NICOLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday at 8:00 AM -: 4:00 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, Paul R. 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.
/FREDERICK C NICOLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights