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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 26, 2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 1, 2024.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an adjusting device in claim 11 (the specification [0027] discloses a hydraulic cylinder).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gneuss et
al. (US 2014/0245891) in view of Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), Clark (US 2019/0085483), Rust (US
2019/0263044) and Heston (US 2,595,455).
Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) disclose a multi-rotation system (figs. 1-3) for processing solid
plastics particles from a polycondensate ([0002] processes plastic granules and bottle flakes; and thus is
capable of processing plastics particles from a polycondensate), the system comprising:
at least one housing 2-4 with a housing recess (fig. 1) and at least one housing opening in a
degassing zone (fig. 1; degassing drum 3 includes openings);
an extruder screw 5-7, 10 having a feed zone, a metering zone, a poly-rotation unit 10, a
transition cone 12, a drive zone and a discharge zone (in which screw 7 is located), wherein the extruder screw is rotatable in the housing recess (figs. 1-3; [0030]-[0033]; screw 6 defines a feed zone and a metering zone at the intake barrel 2; the drive zone includes exposed pinions 16, 16'; and screw 7 defines a discharge zone in output barrel 4); motor 19 rotates the screw in housing recess);
a first extruder section 6 that includes the feed zone and the metering zone of the extruder
screw, and wherein the extruder screw is adapted to be temperature-controlled at least in the first
extruder section by a fluid flowing in an inner flow channel 8, such that temperature control is provided
in the first extruder section (figs. 1-3; [0030]);
a second extruder section, which is designed as a multi-screw extruder section (figs. 1-3), the
second extruder section including the poly-rotation unit 10 and the drive zone of the extruder screw
(figs. 1-3), wherein the poly-rotation unit 10 has a plurality of satellite screws 15, 15' rotating therein,
wherein a diameter of the poly-rotation unit 10 of the extruder screw is increased compared with a
diameter of the extruder screw in the first extruder section 6 (figs. 1-2), wherein the transition cone 12
of the extruder screw is formed between the first and second extruder sections (figs. 1-2), and wherein
the drive zone of the extruder screw is located downstream of the transition cone 12 of the extruder screw in the flow direction and includes exposed drive pinions 16, 16' of the satellite screws 15, 15' (figs.
1-2), wherein toothings ([0032]-[0033]; gear toothings of the drive gears/pinions 16, 16') of the plurality
of satellite screws do not cover an entire circumference of the poly-rotation unit (figs. 1-3), such that
open bypasses are provided in between [0019]-[0020];
wherein, within the second extruder section, there are no conveying elements (no screw threads OR gear toothings of the drive gears/pinions 16, 16') on the extruder screw from a position starting at a downstream end of the transition cone 12 to an upstream end of the drive pinions 16, 16' (figs. 1-2), and
a conical gap formed between the transition cone 12 of the extruder screw and a wall of the at
least one housing 2-4 in the housing recess (fig. 2); and
a discharge extruder section that includes the discharge zone 7 of the extruder screw (fig. 1;
[0030]).
However, Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) does not disclose the multi-rotation system wherein
the degassing zone is a degassing zone in which a vacuum is applied; wherein the solid plastics particles
are partially melted into a partially melted plastics composition in the first extruder section; wherein the
fluid flowing in the inner flow channel enables an internal cooling; wherein a ratio of a length of the
drive pinions of the satellite screws to an axial extent of the poly-rotation unit is 1:40 to 1:6; wherein a
length of a flow path extending from the transition cone through the drive zone to the degassing zone is
less than 20% of the length of the poly-rotation unit; OR the conical gap being adjustable via an axial
displacement of the extruder screw in relation to the at least one housing.
Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767) discloses a multi-rotation system (figs. 1-4) including a housing
2, 5, 13 having an opening 12 in a degassing zone in which a vacuum is applied (fig. 1, 4; [0018]; the
vacuum channel 12 is connected to vacuum pump and thus is capable of degassing).
Clark (US 2019/0085483) discloses a multi-rotation system wherein solid plastics particles are
partially melted into a partially melted plastics composition in the first extruder section (figs. 3-4;
[0101]-[0102]; a first extruder section 410 which includes a feed zone and a metering zone which
generate sufficient heat (e.g., via shearing) to at least substantially melt the wet flakes (solid particles);
at least substantially melting includes partially melting).
Rust (US 2019/0263044) discloses a multi-rotation system ([0018]-[0026]; planetary-roller
extruder) wherein raw material is added to a feed part (a first extruder section), heated under
mechanical deformation, and heated/cooled to achieve a desired material temperature, wherein
flowing heating agents or coolants enables heating/cooling).
Heston (US 2,595,455) discloses an extrusion system (fig. 2) including a housing 34, an extruder
screw 39 including a first extruder section (section of screw in zone 36 and a second extruder section
(degassing zone of screw in zone 37; degassed by vent 44), a transition cone 38 which is formed
between the extruder sections, and a conical gap (the conical gap is located in the tapered (conical) bore
shown in fig. 2) formed between the transition cone 38 and a wall of the housing 34 (fig. 2), the conical
gap being adjustable via an axial displacement of the extruder screw 39 in relation to the housing 34 (fig.
2 is a modification of the embodiment of fig. 1 which includes an adjusting device (nut 24) for adjusting
an axial displacement of the extruder screw in relation to the housing to adjust the gap (gap 20 in fig. 1
or conical gap in fig. 1) to obtain a desired back pressure upstream of the gap (or upstream of the cone
38)(col. 4, lines 22-50; col. 5, lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the degassing zone of Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) to be a degassing zone in which
a vacuum Is applied, as disclosed by Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), because such a modification is
known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the degassing zone capable of
degassing by vacuum; to further modify the multi-rotation system wherein the solid plastics particles are partially melted into a partially melted plastics composition in the first extruder section, as disclosed by
Clark (US 2019/0085483), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the multi-rotation system known to be operable in the art; to further
modify the fluid flowing in the inner flow channel to enable an internal cooling because it is known in
the art that flowing temperature controlling mediums enable heating/cooling to achieve a desired
material temperature, as disclosed by Rust (US 2019/0263044); and to further modify the conical gap of
Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) to be adjustable via an axial displacement of the extruder screw in
relation to the housing, as disclosed by Heston (US 2,595,455), because such a modification is known in
the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the conical gap capable of obtaining a desired
back pressure upstream of the conical gap. Further, Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) discloses that the
poly-rotation unit 10 is in the degassing zone downstream of the transition cone 12 (figs. 1-2). While
Heston 2,595,455) doesn't disclose a poly-rotation unit, Heston does disclose a degassing zone of
the screw adjacent vent 44 downstream of the transition cone 38 (fig. 2). Thus, there is further
motivation to combine because such a modification of adjustable axial displacement of the extruder
screw would enable adjustment of the material back pressure build-up prior to flow of the material to
the degassing zone of Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891), as disclosed by Heston (US 2,595,455).
As to the limitations of "a ratio of a length of the drive pinions of the satellite screws to an axial
extent of the poly-rotation unit is 1:40 to 1:6" and "a length of a flow path extending from the transition
cone through the drive zone to the degassing zone is less than 20% of the length of the poly-rotation
unit", figs. 1-2 of Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) show the pinions 16, 16' having a length and the poly-
rotation unit 10 having a length in an axial extent, and thus a ratio of the length of the pinions of the
satellite screws to the axial extent of the poly-rotation unit 10 is disclosed by the figures; and figs. 1-2 of
Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) show a length of a flow path extending from the transition cone 12
through the drive zone to the degassing zone is less than the length of the poly-rotation unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further
modify the ratio of the length of the pinions of the satellite screws to the axial extent of the poly-
rotation unit to be 1:40 to 1:6 and to further modify the length of the flow path extending from the
transition cone through the drive zone to the degassing zone to be less than 20% of the length of the
poly-rotation unit because such dimensions/dimensional relationships (ratios) would have been found in
finding operable dimensions for the apparatus disclosed by Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) to operate
as intended. Further, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of
relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would
not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the
prior art device, In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert.
denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
As to claim 14, Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) does not disclose the limitations of claim 14. Heston (US 2,595,455) further discloses the housing being adapted to be temperature-controlled at
least in the first and second extruder sections (fig. 1; col. 3, line 71, to col. 4, line 18; the housing 4 is
temperature controlled via elements 31-33 at the first section (section upstream of gap 20) and the
second extruder section (section downstream of gap 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the at least one housing to be
adapted to be temperature-controlled. at least in the first and second extruder sections, as disclosed by
Heston (US 2,595,455), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the housing capable of temperature control.
As to claim 15, Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891) further disclose the multi-rotation system
wherein the discharge zone 7 of the extruder screw has a diameter that is reduced compared with the
diameter of the poly-rotation unit 10 (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gneuss et al. (US
2014/0245891) in view of Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), Clark (US 2019/0085483), Rust (US
2019/0263044) and Heston(US 2,595,455) as applied to claims 9 and 14-15 above, and further in view of
Berggren(US 3,877,265) and Harris (US 4, 721, 589).
Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891), Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), Clark (US 2019/0085483),
Rust (US 2019/0263044) and Heston (US 2,595,455) do not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
As mentioned above, Heston (US 2,595,455) discloses the conical gap being adjustable via an
axial displacement of the extruder screw 39 in relation to the housing 34 (fig. 2 is a modification of the
embodiment of fig. 1 which includes an adjusting device (nut 24) for adjusting an axial displacement of
the extruder screw in relation to the housing to adjust the gap (gap 20 in fig. 1 or conical gap in fig. 1) to
obtain a desired back pressure upstream of the gap (or upstream of the cone 38 in a metering zone)
(col. 4, lines 22-50; col. 5, lines 1-9). Heston(US 2,595,455) does not disclose the adjusting device (nut
24) being a hydraulic cylinder (see paragraph 8 above relative to claim interpretation).
Berggren (US3,877,265) disclose an extrusion system (see figure) including an extruder screw 7,
and an adjusting device via which the extruder screw 7 is displaceable axially in relation to a housing
(see figure; col. 2, lines 42-67; hydraulic cylinder 2, 25 and piston 21, 24 define an adjusting device via
which the screw 7 is axially displaceable).
As mentioned above in Heston (US 2,595,455), the adjusting device adjusts the axial
displacement of the screw to obtain a desired back pressure upstream of the cone (i.e., desired back
pressure control). Note that it would be well within an artisan of ordinary skill to measure the pressure
upstream of the cone to determine if the desired back pressure upstream of the cone is achieved after
adjusting the axial adjustment by the adjusting device.
Harris (US 4, 721, 589) disclose an extrusion system with feedback control including:
at least one pressure sensor 34 which is arranged to measure a pressure in the extrusion
system;
an adjusting device 22 via which an extruder screw is adjustable to modify the pressure in the
extrusion system; and
a control unit 36 which is connected to the pressure sensor 34 and the actuating (adjusting)
device 22 (fig. 1; col. 7, lines 4-24; control unit 24 adjusts an adjusting device 22 to adjust the pressure
based on the measured pressure by sensor 34 to maintain a desired pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the adjusting device with an adjusting device (i.e., hydraulic cylinder), as
disclosed by Berggren(US3,877,265) because such a modification is known in the art and would provide
an alternative configuration for the adjusting device capable of axially displacing the screw in relation to
the housing; and to further modify the desired back pressure control with feedback control, as disclosed
by Harris (US 4,721, 589), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable feedback
control. In view of this combination and the disclosures in Heston (US 2,595,455) and Berggren
(US3,877,265), as mentioned above, the desired back pressure occurs upstream of the cone, and thus
the pressure sensor would be arranged in the metering zone that is upstream of the cone; the adjusting
device (i.e., hydraulic cylinder) would be used to axially displace the screw to adjust the back pressure;
and the control unit would be connected to the pressure sensor and the adjusting device to provide
feedback control to obtain and maintain the desired back pressure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gneuss et al. (US
2014/0245891) in view of Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), Clark (US 2019/0085483), Rust (US
2019/0263044) and Heston (US $2,595,455) as applied to claims 9 and 14-15 above, and further in view
of Beck (US 3,110,930).
Gneuss et al. (US 2014/0245891), Gneuss et al. (US 2005/004767), Clark (US 2019/0085483),
Rust (US 2019/0263044) and Heston (US 2,595,455) do not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Beck (US 3,110,930) discloses an extrusion system including an extruder screw 4 which is axially
displaceable, wherein provided upstream of a feed zone of the extruder screw is a spring element 13 via
which the extruder screw is supported on a housing (see figure; col. 3, line 38, to col. 4, line 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the system wherein provided upstream of the feed zone of the extruder screw
is a spring element via which the extruder screw is supported on the housing, as disclosed by Beck (US
3,110,930), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative
configuration for axially displacing the screw.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Applicant argues that in Fig. 2 of Gneuss '891, at the end of the conical flow path of cone 12, the
flow is blocked by a type of O-ring (unlabeled below) which is positioned upstream, in front of the gear
ring 17. Only fully plasticized melt can flow through the narrow bypass channels of Gneuss '891, which
can be seen in Fig. 3. As shown in Fig. 3, such channels are labeled 21. However, the specification of
Gneuss '891 does not mention reference numeral 21 at all.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Gneuss '891, the flow is NOT blocked by the unlabeled
ring. Gneuss '891 discloses that flow occurs through bypass grooves or passages [0019]-[0020]. Gneuss
'891 does NOT disclose that ONLY fully plasticized melt can flow through the narrow bypass channels.
Applicant's argument that "Only fully plasticized melt can flow through the narrow bypass channels of
Gneuss '891, which can be seen in Fig. 3." is a conclusory statement without factual basis. Note that
Gneuss '891 does NOT disclose the bypass grooves or passages being "narrow" as argued by Applicant.
Further, Gneuss '891 discloses that the bypass grooves or passages are adjustable to enable adjustable
volumes of polymer melt to be conveyed [0019]-[0020]. As mentioned above, Clark (US 2019/0085483)
discloses at least substantially melting the wet flakes (solid particles). Thus, there is a reasonable
expectation of success that a substantially (mostly) melted extrusion material would flow through the
adjustable bypass grooves or passages in Gneuss '891 since partially melted plastic flow is known in the art as mentioned above and because there is no prior art disclosure of the size of the bypass grooves or passages being of a size which only allows fully plasticized melt to flow through. Again, Applicant’s conclusory statement is without factual basis.
Applicant argues that, in Applicant's invention, it is desired to convey, at the same time, fully
plasticized and partially plasticized material, i.e., plastic containing solid particles which are to be fully
plasticized in the drive zone. The small bypass channels of Gneuss '891 would quickly be clogged by such
unmolten particles.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gneuss '891 does NOT disclose that the bypass channels
therein would quickly be clogged by such unmolten particles. Applicant's argument that "The small
bypass channels of Gneuss '891 would quickly be clogged by such unmolten particles." is a conclusory
statement without factual basis. Note that Gneuss '891 does NOT disclose the bypass grooves or
passages being "small" as argued by Applicant. Further, Gneuss '891 discloses that the bypass grooves or
passages are adjustable to enable adjustable volumes of polymer melt to be conveyed [0019]-[0020]. As
mentioned above, Clark (US 2019/0085483) discloses at least substantially melting the wet flakes (solid
particles). Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success that a substantially (mostly) melted
extrusion material would flow through the adjustable bypass grooves or passages in Gneuss '891 since partially melted plastic flow is known in the art as mentioned above and because there is NO prior art disclosure of the bypass grooves or passages being of a size which would clog the adjustable bypass grooves or passages. Again, Applicant’s conclusory statement is without factual basis.
Applicant argues that, if the conical flow channel was terminated by a ring shielding the drive
zone, as is shown by the unlabeled O-ring in Fig. 2 of Gneuss '891, the maximum pressure would be right
in front of that ring without allowing for a relief of the pressure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, flow past the conical flow channel in
Gneuss '891 continues in bypass grooves or passages which would allow for relief of pressure.
Applicant argues that, as shown in Fig. 2 of Gneuss '891 above, the unlabeled O-ring clearly does
block the outer periphery upstream of the conical flow path. Thus, there is no flow to open bypasses
between adjacent toothings. This means, as discussed above, that flow can only occur through the
narrow bypass channels 21 of Gneuss '891, which can be seen in Fig. 3. in this regard, the Examiner also now cites to Clark to teach that solid plastics can be partially melted in a first extruder section, i.e.,
presumably to teach that it was known that a plastic melt does not have to be fully plasticized in the first
extruder section. Applicant submits, however, that such teaching has no bearing on the configuration of
Gneuss '891. In particular, without any disclosure in Gneuss '891 regarding the small bypass channels
21, and based solely on Fig. 3 thereof, one skilled in the art would infer that such channels would quickly
be clogged by unmolten particles, such that when using the configuration of Gneuss '891, the plastic
melt would be fully plasticized.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. If the unlabeled O-ring blocked the outer periphery of the
conical flow path such that there is no flow to open bypasses between adjacent toothings, then, as
understood by the Examiner, NO flow gets past the unlabeled O-ring as argued by Applicant. This is
clearly incorrect because there IS flow past the unlabeled O-ring because Gneuss '891 explicitly discloses
there is flow to the bypass grooves or channels (i.e., past the unlabeled O-ring) [(0019]-[0020]. Gneuss
'891 does not disclose the bypass channels as "narrow" or "small", as mentioned above. Further, note
that Applicant admits that flow would occur through the bypass channels 21. As shown in figs. 2 and 3 of Gneuss '891, the bypass channels are located downstream from the unlabeled O-ring. Thus, even
Applicant appears to acknowledge that there is flow past the unlabeled O-ring to the bypass channels.
Further, Gneuss '891 discloses that the bypass grooves or passages are adjustable to enable adjustable
volumes of polymer melt to be conveyed [0019]-[0020]. In response to applicant's arguments against
the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where
the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As mentioned above,
Clark (US 2019/0085483) discloses at least substantially melting the wet flakes (solid particles). Thus,
there is a reasonable expectation of success that a substantially (mostly) melted extrusion material
would flow through the bypass grooves or passages. Furthermore, note that unmelted particles would have a wide range of sizes, it would be obvious, if not inherent, that unmelted particles that are smaller
than the size of the adjustable bypass grooves or passages would pass through the bypass channels of
Gneuss '891. The teachings of Clark are relevant to Gneuss '891 because they are in the same art. Thus
there is reasonable expectation that unmelted particles that are smaller than the size of the adjustable
bypass channels would not clog the adjustable bypass channels.
Applicant argues claim 9 recites that there are no conveying elements on the extruder screw from a position starting at a downstream end of the transition cone to an upstream end of the drive pinions. Thus, the exterior surface of this part of the extruder screw is smooth, which has the effect that partially molten plastic runs up the cone section and then runs directly in the direction of the longitudinal axis into the drive zone to be mechanically sheared and heated.
However, besides the actual language in claim 9 cited above, such arguments are moot because they are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant argues that, with regard to Heston, such reference is cited to teach an axial
displacement of the extruder screw. Applicant submits, however, that Heston does not refer to the very
special design of an extruder with a poly rotating unit but to a standard degassing extruder only. Heston teaches to fully plasticize the material and to build up pressure in the tapered section which is quite the
opposite of what Applicant's invention proposes.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See case law cited above.
Applicant argues that the extruder of Heston does not have any extra screws at all, i.e., neither
planetary nor satellite screws. The threaded portion 45 of Heston has the effect that melt flow can only
go helically along the threads but not directly over the whole screw in axial direction. Additionally, the
engagement of threads 39, 45 in the first section of Heston prevents unmolten particles from being
processed. In Applicant's invention, the purpose is to process both already molten plastic and unmolten
plastic particles. This is not 2 possible with the Heston extruder
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. See case law cited above. Applicant argues the extruder screw of Heston. However, the
prior art rejections above do not use the extruder screw of Heston.
Applicant argues that the Examiner cites to the Rust reference with regard to flowing
temperature control mediums to enable heating/cooling (see pg. 9 of Office Action). As an initial
matter, Applicant submits that Rust should not be considered as relevant prior art. Rust teaches a
planetary extruder. Even if this type of extruder visually resembles an MRS-type extruder of the present
invention, there are major technical differences. For example, the thread of a planetary screw meshes
with both a thread on the outside of the central main screw as well as with a thread in the inner wall of
the housing bore. Also, the rotational speed of the planetary screw depends on the outer diameter of
the main screw and the inner diameter of the housing bore. Because the thread of the planetary screw
meshes with the thread on the central main screw as well as with the thread in the inner wall of the housing bore, the entire cross section in the housing bore is sealed. It is simply not possible that melt
pressure can drop rapidly at one point because all the melt needs to go the long way along the helical
thread. It also is not possible to have cone shaped sections in this setup and it is not possible to adjust
any gap. Furthermore, as the whole flow path is sealed, the planetary extruder cannot be used for
effectively degassing molten plastic. The planetary screw must always be arranged on top of the largest
diameter of the main screw.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the
references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See case law citation above. Applicant argues
various elements of Rust other than the heating/cooling elements. However, the prior art rejections
above do not use these various other elements of Rust in the prior art rejections. In response to
applicant's argument that Rust is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must
either be in the field of the inventor's endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of
the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case,
Rust is in the field of the inventor's endeavor, namely extrusion, AND is pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely temperature control.
Applicant argues that, on the other hand, in an MRS-type extruder of the present invention, the
thread of the satellite screw meshes neither with the main screw nor with the bore. The satellite screws
have pinions at their respective end sections and only the threads of the pinions mesh with a short
threaded section of the central screw. Applicant submits that only with this design concept, is it possible
to arrange the satellite screws in lowered positions in grooves in the main screw. Furthermore, the
rotational speed of the satellite screw depends on the ratio of the diameter of the pinion to the
diameter of the section of the central screw. The diameters of the main screw and the satellite screw can be chosen independently from the desired speed for the satellites screws. Finally, there is a gap
between the rotating screw unit and the inner wall of the housing which enables that at least a part of
the molten plastic flows axially along the cones and along the screw unit wherein another portion is
stirred by the quickly rotating satellite screws thereby bringing entrapped gas to the outside.
However, such arguments appear to be moot because they are not commensurate in scope with
the instant claims. Applicant has not pointed out where such arguments correspond to the limitations of
the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744