DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 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.
With regard to claim(s) 1, line(s) 10, “upper end”, it is unclear as to if this is a double inclusion error. In line(s) 14, “foreign matter” lack(s) antecedent basis. Further, there is nothing to suggest how “foreign-matter receiving portion” receives foreign-matter given a lack(s) of structural recitation as foundation. Finally, the body of claim(s) 1 is not commensurate with the preamble. No flow of any kind has been established or recited in the body of the claim(s).
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.
Claims 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams et al. (6,609,870).
Williams et al. (6,609,870) disclose(s):
Flow rate adjustment device, figure(s) 1;
Particles, abstract;
Tank 68;
pipe(s) 73;
side holes 81;
inclined portion 77A series;
receiving portion, bottom declined surface at 99, 31, 103.
Williams et al. (6,609,870) disclose(s) heavier particles such that it lack(s) hole guidance into the pipe(s). It has generally been recognized that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (such as applying Williams et al. (6,609,870) to conveying sufficiently light particles), with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Williams et al. (6,609,870) to apply it to a plurality of types of particles in order to increase apparatus versatility.
Conclusion
Claims 2-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Typical prior art such Paul (5,184,730), figure(s) 7, & Horie (JPS 5352206) have no pipe(s) holes. Dirkse (5,129,766) has holes, oriented the wrong way, but also a pipe(s) that doesn’t penetrate the tank surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A DILLON JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6913. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday; 8AM-6:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike McCullough can be reached on (571)272-7805. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703)305-7687 for regular communications and (703)308-0552 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703)308-1134.
/JOSEPH A DILLON JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
