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 with traverse of Group II (claims 9-16) in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no undue burden on the Examiner due to a part of an overlapping search. This is not found persuasive because as follows:
There would be a serious search and examination burden if the restriction was not required between the method and apparatus claims. This stems from the different examination criteria between method and apparatus claims. In this case, apparatus claims differentiate from method claims, since for apparatus claims, it is primarily the claimed structural features that are given patentable weight while other features such as material worked upon by the apparatus are not given patentable weight. This difference would extend into a search burden since process claims take into account features such as material worked upon, or operating procedures, which may have different classification classes/subclasses for consideration and different search queries. See MPEP 808.02(C).
Meanwhile, the apparatus claims would extend to different areas of consideration since the material worked upon would not limit prior art references since the references merely need to have a similar structure that is capable of working upon the materials whereas the same said references might not be considered as prior art for the process claims.
Although there may be some overlap of the search for the inventions there is nothing to indicate that the search would be coextensive. Thus, the examination on the merits of apparatus claims differs from that of method claims. Therefore, the extra search and/or examination burden for addressing multiple inventions poses a serious burden to the examiner which makes the restriction requirement proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 6(a)-(c) are inconsistent with the description and/or incorrectly represent instant invention as follows:
Para. [0074] (as published) discloses that “In FIG. 6(b), the shaft 9 that horizontally extends in FIG. 6(a) and stirring blades 10 at the tips thereof are omitted. In addition, in FIG. 6(c), the shafts 9 that extend horizontally and backwards and stirring blades 10 at the tips thereof are omitted.” However, both the fig. 6(b) and fig. 6(c) show the stirring blade(s) 10 at the tip(s) of the omitted shaft 9. It is suggested to delete the cited portion in Instant Specification or correct the figs. 6(b) and 6(c) as disclosed.
Para. [0077] (as published) discloses that “As shown in FIG. 6(c), the stirring blade 10 is inclined inwards with respect to a rotation direction D (the tangential direction of the revolving circumference) of the stirring blade 10 such that the angle thereof becomes an angle θ in the direction of the rotation shaft 8, and the angle θ is set to 10° to 70°.” Contrary to the description, the angle θ as shown in fig. 6(c) is not “inclined inwards” with respect to a rotation direction D, rather being “inclined outward and upward.” Also, such “outward and upward” inclination does not seem to be generated by the actual inclination of the tip of the stirring blade 10 but due to a direction of the view. The Examiner strongly believes that the “inward inclination with the angle θ” as disclosed should be marked in fig. 6(a) between the shaft 9 and the stirring blade 10, similar to the angle θ as shown in fig. 3(a). Accordingly, the angle θ in fig. 6(c) should be deleted. Appropriate correction in drawing and/or a following correction in Instant Specification is required.
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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 should be corrected to “The .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (US 20130146619 A1) in view of Iwasaki (US 20160351899 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa teaches a method for feeding a fibrous filler stored in a hopper to a discharge portion (abstract; [0076]: powder/fibrous powder/granular material; figs. 1-11, 20-21), comprising:
stirring the fibrous filler by rotating an agitator (stirring member 4 in figs. 1-11; stirring device 54 in figs. 20-21) such that the fibrous filler is spread, the agitator being provided in a connecting tank (chute 3 in figs. 1-11; chute 53 in figs. 20-21) which is provided between the hopper (hopper 1 in figs. 1-11; hopper 51 in figs. 20-21) and the discharge portion (outlet portion 2 in figs. 1-11 outlet portion 52 in figs. 20-21) (figs. 1-11 and [0067-0070]; figs. 20-21 and [0002-0005]; [0076]: fibrous powder), the agitator comprising:
a shaft (shaft 4a and/or a horizontally-extending portion of stirring member 4b in figs. 1-11; shaft 54a and/or a horizontally-extending portion of stirring member 54b in figs. 20-21) that rotates around a rotation axis (id.); and
a stirring blade (stirring member 4b as a whole and/or an end portion of stirring member 4b in figs. 1-11; stirring member 54b as a whole and/or an end portion of stirring member 54b in figs. 20-21; respective to the shaft) provided at a tip of the shaft and configured to rotate along an inner circumferential surface of the connecting tank (id.), and [the stirring blade being inclined inwards at an inclination angle θ of 10° to 70° with respect to a rotation direction of the stirring blade]; and
feeding the fibrous filler to the discharge portion by rotating a screw (a screw 2b in figs. 1-11; a screw 52a in figs. 20-21) provided at a bottom portion of the connecting tank (figs. 1-11 and [0071]; figs. 20-21 and [0006-0007]).
Ozawa does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., [the stirring blade being inclined inwards at an inclination angle θ of 10° to 70° with respect to a rotation direction of the stirring blade], but Iwasaki teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Iwasaki teaches a device and a method of making a composite active material powder (abstract). Iwasaki teaches the stirring blade being inclined inwards at an inclination angle θ of 10° to 70° with respect to a rotation direction of the stirring blade (figs. 2-3; [0035-0036]: in the rotating shaft direction front view of the rotating body 13 shown in FIG. 1, an inclined angle 20 of the tapered section is preferably 10 to 80° to a tangent line L at a point of intersection between an extended line extended from an inclined surface 28 of the tapered section in the inclined direction; here, although the disclosed range of the inclination angle does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 10 to 70°1).
In the same field of endeavor of handling/mixing powdery material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the end portion of stirring member of Ozawa to a tapered section, being inclined to a tangent line L in 10 to 70 degrees as taught by Iwasaki in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of improving mixing of powdery materials in a chamber and/or homogeneously applying further treatment on the powdery materials with minimized damages on the surface of the powdery materials (Iwasaki: derived from [0006]).
Regarding claim 10, although modified Ozawa, as applied to claim 9, is silent that a rotation speed of the agitator is 1% to 20% of a rotation speed of the screw, modified Ozawa teaches that the track of rotation of the stirring part can be located along the outlet portion, thereby fully stabilizing the filling rate of powder/granular material to the outlet portion ([0023]), and a motor 11 for rotating a screw 2b of an outlet portion 2 and a motor 12 for rotating a stirring part 4 may be separately provided such that the screw 2b of the outlet portion 2 and the stirring part 4 can be separately driven or controlled with different adjusted rotation speeds (fig. 13 and [0090]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify or optimize the ratio of the rotation speed of the agitator to the rotation speed of the screw so as to obtain a desired and fully-stabilized filling rate of the powder material into the outlet portion.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ozawa, as applied to claim 9, teaches a method for producing a fibrous filler having a bulk density [decreased by spreading the fibrous filler stored in a hopper], comprising: stirring the fibrous filler by rotating an agitator such that the fibrous filler is spread, the agitator being provided in a connecting tank which is provided between the hopper and a discharge portion, the agitator comprising: a shaft that rotates around a rotation axis; and a stirring blade provided at a tip of the shaft and configured to rotate along an inner circumferential surface of the connecting tank, and the stirring blade being inclined inwards at an inclination angle θ of 10° to 70° with respect to a rotation direction of the stirring blade; and supplying the fibrous filler to a discharge portion by rotating a screw provided at a bottom portion of the connecting tank (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 9). Here, although modified Ozawa is silent about the bracketed “preamble” as presented above, the preamble is not directed/related to any limitations as recited in claim 12. Thus, modified Ozawa teaches all the claimed limitations of the method as recited in claim 12.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (JP 2000263547 A) in view of Ozawa (US 20130146619 A1) and Iwasaki (US 20160351899 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Oda teaches a method for producing a thermoplastic resin composition ([0039]; fig. 3), comprising:
feeding a raw material (e.g. Polycarbonate resin) comprising a thermoplastic resin from a main feeding port of an extruder ([0039]: a screw-type feeder is supplied material to the first feed port (at a rear end of the screw of the twin-screw extruder);
feeding the fibrous filler (e.g., CFC-ET fiber) [obtained by the method of claim 12] from a side feeder provided downstream of the main feeding port ([0039]: a carbon fiber chopped strand is supplied to the second feed port via a side feeder as shown in fig. 3); and
melt-kneading the fibrous filler and the raw material ([0039]).
Oda does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the fibrous filler is obtained by the method of claim 12, but Ozawa in view of Iwasaki teaches the limitation(s) (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 12). Here, in the same field of endeavor of endeavor of handling/mixing powdery material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify/substitute the side feeder and/or the side feeding method of feeding the fibrous filler to an extruder of Oda with a known side feeder and/or side feeding method as taught by modified Ozawa in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of providing homogeneously mixed/further treated powdery materials into an extruder with minimized damages/bridges/ratholes on the surface of the powdery materials and/or a favorably stabilized filling rate (Ozawa: derived from abstract; Iwasaki: derived from [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kramer (US 4,087,079 A) teaches a mixing apparatus (abstract, figs. 1-3).
Rass (US 20160166997 A1) teaches a mixer 1 comprising a paddle 30, a paddle rail 20, and a mixer shaft 10 (abstract), and a scraper 40 at the tip of the paddle 30 is inclined inward in an angle with respect to a rotation direction of the paddle 30 (fig. 2b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Prosecution Insights