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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR l.83(a) because they do not show every claimed feature and because the drawings and description are internally inconsistent. Corrected drawing sheets arc required in reply, subject to 37 CFR 1.121(d), and may not introduce new matter.
Figure 6 labels the overall height difference (H), but no dimension, reference tine, or other graphic indication identifies the "one pitch" recited in claim 6. The drawing should identify the structural pitch and the points or surfaces from which it is measured.
Figure 9 marks the direction arrow "CW," which conventionally indicates clockwise rotation, while paragraph [0077] states that arrow CW indicates the counterclockwise direction. The drawing or description must be corrected for consistency.
Figure 20 does not show the claim 18 steps of receiving a first arrival signal and controlling the first detection element based on that signal, or the claim 19 steps of receiving a second arrival signal and stopping the motor based on that signal. The flowchart should be corrected to show the claimed steps or the claims should be amended.
Specification
The specification is objected to under 37 CFR l.7S(d){l) and 37 CFR l.83(a) because the terminology in the description and drawings is inconsistent with the claims and with the stated reference numerals.
Paragraph [0092] refers to "fixing base (20)" and "transfer disc (42)," whereas the application otherwise identifies those structures as base (20) and delivery disc (42).
Paragraph [0099] refers to "transfer disc (423)," but reference numeral (423) identifies the drive shaft, not the disc.
The brief descriptions of Figures 11-14 use "granule feeding device" and "fixing base," whereas the disclosed article is the cleaning granule dispensing device and the corresponding structure is the base.
Paragraph [0077] describes arrow CW as counterclockwise, contrary to Figure 9 and the ordinary meaning of CW.
Appropriate correction is required. Any amendment must preserve the originally filed disclosure and may not introduce new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 17 are objected to because informalities impede clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 contains a misplaced modifier and comma splice in "at least one delivery cavity, driven by the motor, the delivery disc drives ...." The limitation should be rewritten so that the motor-driven rotation clearly modifies the delivery disc.
Claim 15 recites "a positioning hole extending along the rotation axis of the delivery disc direction." The phrase should be corrected, for example. to "extending along the direction of the rotation axis of the delivery disc,", if supported.
Claim 17 recites "wherein comprising." The claim should use a grammatically proper transition, such as "the method comprising," if supported.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. The phrase "a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point of the spiral surface is less than or equal to one pitch" does not identify the structure that defines the pitch, the direction in which pitch is measured, or the reference points used to determine it. Paragraph [0055] repeats the language without supplying an objective boundary, and Figure 6 identifies only the height difference (H). A person of ordinary skill therefore cannot determine the metes and bounds of "one pitch" with reasonable certainty.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger, et al, ("Geiger") (U.S. Pub. 2002/0083543) in view of Liarte Marin, et al. ("Marin") (U.S. Pub. 2019/0133411).
Regarding claim 1, Geiger discloses a cleaning-granule dispensing device having support/base (3, 6), storage container (4) above the base, motor (14), rotatable dosage/delivery disc (7), circumferential delivery cavities (9), and outlet (10a) leading to spout (10). The delivery cavities receive individual granules and sequentially align with the outlet. See Geiger ¶¶ [0017]-[0025], Figures 1-2, and claims 6-12. Geiger does not expressly disclose a separate bottom plate having an offset discharge port between the storage cavity and the rotating delivery cavity.
Marin supplies that missing arrangement: reservoir (101), bottom (103), offset transfer opening (107), rotatable cell wheel (109), transport chambers (111), and ejection channel (113), where each chamber moves from the transfer opening to the ejection channel. See Marin,¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0039]-[0041 ], and Figures 2-3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Geiger by interposing Marin's bottom (103) and offset transfer opening (107) above Geiger's rotating disc (7), so each cavity (9) receives a metered granule at the transfer opening and later communicates with outlet (10a), while retaining Geiger's transverse motor and peripheral tooth drive and its beverage-machine installation, because Marin teaches that active transport from a bottom transfer opening "results in a desired quantity of cleaning agent being metered in a reliable manner" (Marin ¶ [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, Geiger further discloses peripheral drive teeth on disc (7), gearwheel (13), and motor (14), with Figure 1 showing the motor axis transverse, and therefore perpendicular, to the disc axis. The motor drives the disc through the peripheral teeth and intervening gearwheel. See Geiger ¶¶ [0022]-[0025], Figure 1, and claims 9-12.
Accordingly, the Geiger-Marin combination includes the additional motor orientation and peripheral-tooth drive required by claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Geiger expressly places its cleaning-granule dosage device in an automatic or semi-automatic coffee or tea machine. See Geiger ¶ [0017]. Geiger's dosage device supplies cleaning granules for cleaning the beverage machine and, as modified by Marin, includes the cleaning-granule dispensing device of claim 1. Accordingly, the combination provides a beverage machine having a chamber to be cleaned and the claimed device configured to dispense cleaning granules to that chamber.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin, and further in view of Wu, et al. ("Wu") (CN Pub. 117356913 A).
The Geiger-Marin combination lacks a stirring rod in the accommodation cavity that is driven synchronously by the delivery disc. Wu discloses a cleaning-medicine delivery device for beverage-brewing equipment having turntable (2), stirring rod (23) projecting from the turntable, drive shaft (41), and key connection causing the turntable and stirring rod to rotate together. See Wu, ¶¶ [0039]-[0048] and Figures 4, 6, and 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the modified Geiger disc with Wu's coaxial stirring rod (23) driven by the disc/shaft, because Wu teaches that the dispensing structure automatically meters cleaning medicine and avoids equipment failure or damage caused by delivery error (Wu, ¶¶ [0010], [0024]-[0025]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin and Wu, and further in view of Hood (U.S. Patent 4,896,615).
The Geiger-Marin-Wu combination does not disclose the claimed deformable stirring-arm alternative.
Hood discloses a rotating shaft (30) carrying a brush (38) with flexible bristles (42), each bristle having a fixed end and a free end that bends while traversing a dispensing opening (28). See Hood, column 5, lines 1-17, and Figure 4. A bristle extending from the rotating brush is a deformable stirring arm within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing dare of the claimed invention, to provide Wu's stirring rod with one or more Hood-type flexible arms fixed at one end and free to deform at the other, because Hood teaches that the flexible members bend while traversing the dispensing opening and avoid the hazards of rigid projecting structures (Hood, column 5, lines 8-17).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin, and further in view of Preugschas, et al. ("Preugschas") (EP Pub. 1159913 A1).
The Geiger-Marin combination does not expressly disclose an elongate storage channel holding at least one cleaning granule immediately upstream of the delivery cavity.
Preugschas discloses storage container (7), feed shaft/channel (10) extending to cell wheel (14), and transport chambers (15), with the channel sized to pass and queue tablets sequentially. See Preugschas, page 4, lines 20-34; page 6, lines 1-18; and Figures 2-3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to extend Marin's transfer opening into Preugschas's feed shaft (10) and size it to hold at least one granule before entry into Geiger's cavity (9), because Preugschas teaches that the feed shaft supplies tablets sequentially in a predetermined orientation and that the associated conveyor prevents tablet bridging (Preugschas, page 4, lines 20-34).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin, and further in view of Bi (CN Pub. 215478443 U).
Regarding claim 7, the Geiger-Marin combination does not disclose a first detection element that detects a granule in a delivery cavity at a detection position between the receiving and output positions. Bi discloses rotating disc (30), metering chutes (31), feed opening (22), output opening (23), sensor (50), controller (60), and drive mechanism (40). A chute occupies a detection region corresponding to sensor (50) after loading and before discharge; the controller continues rotation when the chute is empty and advances the loaded chute to the output when material is detected. See Bi, ¶¶ [0034]-[0037] and Figure 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position Bi's sensor (50) on the base of the modified Geiger device to inspect cavity (9) after the receiving position and before the output position, because Bi teaches that this arrangement makes the delivered amount controllable and improves operating effect (Bi ¶ [0036]).
Regarding claim 17, Geiger and Marin disclose motor-driven movement of a delivery cavity from a granule-receiving position to a granule-output position in response to operation of the cleaning dispenser, but do not disclose the intervening detection step and associated control sequence. Bi's controller (60) operates drive mechanism (40), detects whether a metering chute contains material after loading, advances a loaded chute to the output, and continues the rotation-and-detection cycle when the chute is empty. See Bi ¶¶ [0034]-[0037]. Applied to the Geiger-Marin cleaning dispenser, this control sequence receives a cleaning command, moves the cavity through receiving, detection, and output positions, detects the granule at the detection position, dispenses the detected granule at the output, and continues the indexed cycle to the ready or waiting position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the modified Geiger dispenser according to Bi's sequence so that the motor moves the cavity through the claimed receiving, detection, output, and waiting positions and confirms the presence of a granule before discharge, because Bi teaches that this controlled detection and delivery makes the delivered amount controllable and improves operating effect (Bi ¶ [0036]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin, and further in view of Limback, et al. ("Limback") (U.S. Pub. 2005/0269346).
The Geiger-Marin combination provides receiving and output alignments but does not expressly designate a waiting position offset from both ports.
Limback discloses rotating disk apertures (115, 132) angularly separated from stationary aperture (123), such that the flow path is interrupted between loading and discharge positions. See Limback ¶¶ [0030]-[0038], [0047]-[0052], and Figures 6-11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stop the modified Geiger disc with its cavity angularly between Marin's transfer opening and Geiger's delivery outlet, thereby producing the claimed waiting position, because Limback teaches that the interrupted flow path isolates stored tablets from moisture and vapor (Limback ¶¶ [0050]-[0052]).
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin and Bi, and further in view of De Raedt, et al. ("De Raedt") (U.S. Pub. 2004/0149539).
Regarding claim 9, the Geiger-Marin-Bi combination does not expressly disclose a sensing portion on the delivery disc corresponding to the delivery cavity and a second detection element on the base that detects the sensing portion to determine arrival at the detection position.
De Raedt discloses rotating wheel (58), wells (62), metal reference pins (84) carried by the wheel, and fixed synchronization sensor (94), with the detected reference pin identifying the position of a well relative to a fixed station. See De Raedt ¶¶ [0042]-[0048] and Figures 6-7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a De Raedt reference pin or equivalent sensing portion on the modified Geiger disc for each cavity and a fixed sensor on the base that detects the sensing portion when the cavity reaches Bi's detection position, because De Raedt teaches that reference pins detected by a synchronization sensor monitor the positions of the rotating wells relative to fixed processing stations (De Raedt ¶¶ [0044]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 10, the Geiger-Marin-Bi combination does not expressly disclose a third detection element circumferentially spaced from the detection-position sensor and configured to detect the disc-mounted sensing portion at a waiting position after output and before receiving.
De Raedt discloses fixed position inputs, including synchronization sensor (94) and motor-position sensor/encoder (22A), for identifying the angular position of rotating wells (62) relative to fixed stations. See De Raedt, ¶¶ [0042]-[0048]. Using a second fixed detector at the waiting station would identify the same disc-mounted sensing portion at that separate angular position, as required by claim 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a further fixed De Raedt-type position detector on the base, circumferentially spaced from the detection-position sensor, to detect the sensing portion when the cavity reaches the waiting position, because De Raedt teaches monitoring the positions of rotating wells relative to fixed processing stations with reference pins and position sensors (De Raedt ¶¶ [0044]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 18, the Geiger-Marin-Bi combination does not expressly disclose receiving a first arrival signal from the second detection element and activating the first, granule-detection element in response to that signal.
De Raedt discloses synchronization sensor (94), motor-position sensor/encoder (22A), and fixed article sensor (92), with the position signal identifying alignment of a well with the fixed sensing station. See De Raedt ¶¶ [0042]-[0048] and Figures 6-7. Thus, De Raedt supplies the position-arrival signal used to determine when Bi's material sensor should inspect the cavity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the De Raedt position-sensor signal indicating that the cavity has arrived at the detection station to trigger Bi's granule sensor, because De Raedt teaches that reference pins and the synchronization sensor monitor the positions of the rotating wells relative to fixed processing stations (De Raedt ¶¶ [0044]-[0047]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin, and further in view of Long, et al. ("Long") (U.S. Pub. 2010/0176157).
The Geiger-Marin combination does not expressly disclose the claimed peripheral powder-blocking-rib alternative.
Long discloses rotatable granule measuring disc (40), delivery voids (46), and an upwardly projecting rim (48) at the disc perimeter surrounding the voids and engaging the interior of base (15). See Long ¶¶ [0038]-[0042], Figure 6, and claim 11.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add Long's upwardly projecting perimeter rim (48) around Geiger's delivery cavities to form the claimed peripheral blocking rib, because Long teaches that the rim provides a wide engagement surface and retains gasket (39) in place (Long ¶ [0041]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Geiger in view of Marin and Bi, and further in view of Benetello (U.S. Pub. 2011/0024441).
Regarding claim 19, The Geiger-Marin-Bi combination does not expressly disclose receiving a second arrival signal at the waiting position and stopping the motor in response.
Benetello discloses motor (1), output shaft (11), magnets (32, 33) as rotary sensing portions, Hall sensor (51), and controller (7). Successive magnet detections define a full revolution, and the controller governs motor operation based on those detections. See Benetello, ¶¶ [0048]-[0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to designate one Benetello magnet/sensor event as the arrival of the modified Geiger cavity at its moisture-isolating waiting position and stop the motor in response, because Benetello teaches that magnetic movement detection is "simple, accurate and reliable" and prepares the dispenser accurately and reliably for the next delivery operation (Benetello ,¶ [0044])
Regarding claim 20, Bi discloses repeatedly rotating disc (30) and repeatedly detecting chute (31) when no material is detected, until sensor (50) detects material. Benetello discloses repeating corrective motor operation when an article is not delivered and, after three unsuccessful repetitions, generating a visual and/or audible error signal. Benetello also discloses automatic electrical stopping under anomalous operating conditions. See Bi ¶¶ [0035]-[0036]; Benetello, ¶¶ [0045], [0053]-[0056].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to continue the modified Geiger disc's rotate-and-detect cycle until a granule is found and, after N unsuccessful detections where N is at least three, stop the motor and issue a prompt, because Benetello teaches that after three unsuccessful repetitions the dispenser generates a visual and/or audible error signal (Benetello ¶ [0055]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, and 15-20 of copending U.S. Application No. 19/184,713, published as Wang et al. (US 2025/0331673 Al). This is a provisional rejection because the reference claims are pending. The applications have the same inventors, assignee, filing date, and claimed priority date.
Although the claims are not identical, the instant claims recite the same granule-feeding assembly or an obvious selection or aggregation of features expressly claimed together in the copending application. The disclosure of the copending application is used only to construe the scope of its pending claims; the rejection is based on the claims themselves. Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are not included because the copending claims do not claim the instant sensor sequence and dispensing-control method. See table, below.
Instant claims
Claims of copending App, 19/184,713
Shared structure/secondary reference
1
1 and 17
Same base/fixing base, storage container/box, accommodation cavity, motor-driven disc/shaft. offset discharge region, delivery outlet, and disc cavity moving sequentially from discharge to outlet. No secondary reference required.
2
17-18
Same transfer disc, peripheral transmission teeth, motor drive, and shaft/disc arrangement. The perpendicular motor orientation is an obvious packaging orientation within the claimed geared drive. Geiger may alternatively be used to show the transverse motor arrangement.
3-4
16-18
Same synchronous stirring rod driven through the disc/shaft; claim 16 also expressly claims the polygon geometry and deformable fixed/free stirring arm. No secondary reference required.
5
18
Same storage channel connecting the accommodation cavity and transfer cavity, with space for at least one granule. No secondary reference required.
6
15 and 17
Same spiral supporting surface centered on the discharge port, including the downward radial slope and the one-pitch height alternative, used with the same transfer disc. No secondary reference required.
11
1, 4-5, and 17
Same disc/shaft drive causing the support/bottom portion to move within a radial range. No secondary reference required.
12
5-7 and 17
Same bottom plate, support member above it, shaft passing through the plate, drivable connection, and radial clearance gap. No secondary reference required.
13
3 and 9
Same reset element between support member and bottom plate, applying force opposite the driven direction. No secondary reference required.
14
7 and 17
Same disc/shaft clearance, powder-guiding inclined surface, peripheral powder-blocking rib, and powder-leakage-port alternatives. No secondary reference required for those alternatives; the instant first-elastic-member alternative is not needed to meet the "at least one" limitation.
15
19
Same circumferentially fixed sealing cover between disc and base, through hole, positioning post/foot/slot, recess spring, skirt, annular rib, and leakage-port alternatives. No secondary reference required.
16
20 with 1 and 17
Same beverage machine, target cleaning chamber, and granule-feeding device configured to dispense granules to that chamber. No secondary reference required.
The differences identified above would have been obvious because they amount to selecting already-claimed alternatives, combining expressly interrelated dependent-claim features in the same disclosed assembly, or using a conventional orientation of the same geared drive without producing a different function or result. A timely terminal disclaimer compliant with 37 CFR 1.321 may obviate the nonstatutory double-patenting rejection if the ownership requirements are satisfied; alternatively. applicant may show that the claims are patentably distinct. See MPEP §§ 804 and 1490.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11-13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 11-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a Terminal Disclaimer is approved to overcome the provisional double-patenting rejection, above.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a Terminal Disclaimer is approved to overcome the provisional double-patenting rejection, above. See MPEP § 707.07(j).
Claim 6 requires the bottom plate portion to have a supporting surface formed as a spiral surface whose spiral center line coincides with the center line of the discharge port. The spiral surface must also be inclined downward toward the center of the discharge port along the radial direction, or have a height difference between its highest and lowest points that is no greater than one pitch. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest this claimed spiral supporting surface centered on the discharge port, including either of the claimed slope or height-difference alternatives.
Claim 11 requires a drivable connection between the delivery disc and the bottom plate portion that transmits rotation of the delivery disc to move the bottom plate portion within a preset range in the radial direction of the delivery disc. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest using rotation of the delivery disc to produce the claimed limited radial movement of the bottom plate portion.
Claim 12 further requires the bottom plate portion to include a bottom plate and a support member above the bottom plate; a drive shaft fixed to the delivery disc and extending through the bottom plate to drive the support member; and a preset gap between the support member and the storage-container side wall that permits radial movement of the support member relative to the bottom plate. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest this combination of a separately movable support member, a drive shaft passing through the bottom plate and drivebly connected to the support member, and the claimed radial clearance gap.
Claim 13 further requires a reset element connected between the bottom plate and the support member, with the delivery disc driving the support member in a first direction and the reset element applying a reset force in the opposite direction. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest this opposed drive-and-reset arrangement for reciprocating the support member.
Claim 15 requires a scaling cover circumferentially fixed relative to the delivery disc and positioned between the delivery disc and the base, with a through hole through which the delivery cavity communicates with the delivery outlet. The sealing cover must also include at least one of the claimed anti-rotation positioning-post and insertion-foot arrangement, spring-biased recess arrangement. recess-entering skirt arrangement, or annular-protrusion and powder-leakage-port arrangement. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed sealing-cover combination, including any one of those four alternatives in the recited relationship to the deli very disc and base.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892, attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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.
/MICHAEL J. MELARAGNO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
