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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (4 – 2 – 2026) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (3 – 5- 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Ubaldo Colombo (US 20070159916 A1, hereinafter Colombo) / Colombo as modified does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area, the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Colombo / Colombo as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As detailed in the action of (1 – 5 – 2026) Yamaguchi teaches the following: ([0117]) teaches that although in the above embodiments there is shown an example in which one kneading degree adjusting mechanism is provided at a position corresponding to an axially intermediate portion of the kneading screws 4, plural kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4. As such, implementing multiple degree adjusting mechanisms are provided. Adding, that as best illustrated in (Figs. 5 – 6) collectively implementing both of the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms would provide for a plurality of kneading degree adjusting mechanisms provides for each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area, and each of the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the each of the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other. The case law for change in size or change in shape may be recited. Where the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144. Adding, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, the case law for intended use may be recited. Where, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. Furthermore, both Yamaguchi and Yamada recognize that the predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves impacts several characteristics including Yamaguchi recognizing on ([0092]) that by making each kneading degree adjusting member 12 longer than the push-back section 11 axially, when the channel is opened for adjusting the degree of kneading, it is possible to weaken the kneading action for the material M at the kneading degree adjusting member 12 which is formed longer than the push-back section 11. Further, Yamada recognizing on ([0048]) teaches that protruding height of the convex part 21, that is, a distance between the protruding face 24 and a part of the opposed face 20 excluding the convex part 21 in the axially perpendicular direction is set to be a larger value than the clearance Δ between the gate member 14 and the cylindrical segment 13 when the gate member 14 is moved the closest to the cylindrical segment 13, that is, the minimum value of the clearance Δ. As such, both Yamaguchi and Yamada providing for the predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves to be a result effective variable impacting both shear force and clearance Δ amongst other features and properties of the mixing apparatus.Furthermore, Borzenski recognizes on ([0043]) teaches that (Figs. 4A, 4B & 4C) show one embodiment of a ram 224 of this invention. ([0044]) teaches that (Figs. 5A, 5B & 5C) show a second embodiment of the ram 324 of this invention attached to the rod 38. With ([0039]) teaching that the ram is secured to the lower end of the rod 38. As such, the rams are understood to be secured to the rods. Accordingly, each mobile sleeve has a support surface of a predetermined surface area. With, (Figs. 1 – 2) illustrating a ram with a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, the case law for intended use may be recited. Where, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Colombo / Colombo as modified.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, wherein the at least one mobile sleeve is an interchangeable mobile sleeve of a plurality of interchangeable mobile sleeves, each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area, the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Highlighting, that one a single interchangeable mobile sleeve with a single predetermined surface area is provided in the figures. No new matter should be entered.
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 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 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.
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.
A.) Claim(s) 1 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubaldo Colombo (US 20070159916 A1, hereinafter Colombo) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20100271901 A1, hereinafter Yamaguchi) and in further view of Yamada et al. (US 20100309745 A1, hereinafter Yamada)Regarding claim 1,
A mixing and extrusion machine for producing a rubber mixture, the mixing and extrusion machine comprising:
an introduction hopper; and
a mixer,
the mixer being a converging conical twin-screw mixer including:
sleeves in which two screws are mounted at an angle between an opening and an outlet,
the two screws having an upstream portion and a downstream portion,
the opening being disposed at the upstream portion of the two screws and connected to the introduction hopper for the introduction hopper to feed the two screws,
the outlet being disposed downstream of the sleeves to discharge the rubber mixture at the end of a mixing cycle;
one or more motors coupled to the two screws to rotate the two screws in the sleeves during the mixing cycle,
one or more movable doors provided at the outlet and movable to allow, at the end of the mixing cycle, the discharge and shaping of the rubber mixture; and
at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer at the downstream portion of the two screws,
each mobile sleeve movable by linear movement with respect to the outlet to adjust a predetermined space between the respective mobile sleeve and the two screws,
the linear movement being defined between a closed position of the respective mobile sleeve to facilitate mixing of the rubber mixture, and
an open position of the respective mobile sleeve to facilitate the flow of the rubber mixture inside the mixer,
wherein the at least one mobile sleeve is an interchangeable mobile sleeve of a plurality of interchangeable mobile sleeves,
each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area,
the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, and
wherein the at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer is based on the elasticity of the rubber mixture.
Colombo teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches the mixer comprises a fixed base 1, from whose front end a post rises that supports a twin-screw body 2 provided with a feedbox 3. Where the feedbox 3 acts as a hopper.
& c.) (Abstract) teaches that a dump extruder with conical converging twin screws 10 arranged in a batching chamber 12 in which the outlet of the dump extruder is temporarily closed by a removable blind flange 11, the batching chamber also acting as a compounding chamber. As such, the conical converging twin screw extruder is understood to be a mixer.
([0020]) teaches that the batching chamber 12 opens towards the feed box 3 through a mouthpiece 12 a. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the twin screws are mounted within a twin-screw body 2. Where the twin-screw body 2 acts as applicant's sleeves in which two screws are mounted at an angle between an opening / mouthpiece 12 a of the feedbox and an outlet of the sleeves closed by a removable blind flange 11.
([0025]) teaches that the conical screws 10 are arranged in the twin-screw body 2 so as to graze with their front end the blind flange 11. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the screw is shown to have an upstream portion and a downstream portion.
As illustrated in (Fig. 1 & 3 – 4) the feed box 3 opening / mouthpiece 12 a is found to be at the upstream portion of the two screws and connected to the feed box / introduction hopper for the introduction hopper to feed the two screws.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the outlet of the sleeves closed by a removable blind flange 11 is found downstream of the sleeves to discharge the rubber mixture at the end of a mixing cycle.
([0024]) teaches that starting of the motor and the resulting opposed rotation of the conical screws 10 pushes the material to be mixed towards the outlet and forces the material to recirculate backwards towards the chamber for further mixing.
([0021] – [0026]) teaches the flange 11 can be easily removed, in order to keep the outlet closed, as long as desired during the mixing step, while it can be removed to allow the extruded material to come out at the end of compounding.
Regarding Claim 1, Colombo is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into а shaped object, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
([0063]) teaches that the cavity portion 39 is formed by hollowing out the barrel 3 in such a manner that its cross section assumes an overlapped shape of a pair of circles, the circles overlapping each other in part of the respective circumferences at intermediate portions of the two, i.e., a glasses hole shape. As shown in (Fig. 4) the screws are provided with their own sleeves.
([0067]) teaches that the kneading degree adjusting mechanism 1 is installed at a position adjacent to the downstream side of the first kneading section 10 a (kneading section 10). ([0117]) teaches that a plurality of kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4. ([0129]) teaches that the kneading degree adjusting mechanism may be disposed at a plurality of positions disposed in the axial direction of the kneading screw. Accordingly, (Fig. 1) show that the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 is found downstream of the kneading section 10a. With a seconding kneading 10b section found upstream of the outlet. With ([0117]) teaching that although the shown examples provide one kneading degree adjusting mechanism 1 at a position corresponding to an axially intermediate portion of the kneading screws 4, a plurality kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4. As such, placing a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 for at the seconding kneading 10b is understood to provide a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 that is axially along the barrel segment such that the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 is both adjacent/ in the same section as the outlet and upstream of the outlet. Accordingly, while it is understood that Yamaguchi provides for a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 that is both adjacent to the outlet and upstream of the outlet. However, if there any perceived discrepancies or if it is determined that Yamaguchi does not teach the position for the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms. The case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
([0075] teaches that the upper member 12 a of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driving shaft 29 via the upper traveling member 25 a, the upper driving shaft 26 a and the upper gear box 27 a (see FIG. 4) which are disposed above the upper member 12 a. The lower member 12 b of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driven shaft 30 via the lower traveling member 25 b, the lower driving shaft 26 b and the lower gear box 27 b (see FIG. 4) which are disposed below the lower member 12 b. As shown in (Figs. 5-6) each of the kneading degree adjusting member is found to adjust a predetermined space between the sleeves and the screws. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 2 -3) the associated drive shafts provide linear movement to the members 12 of the kneading degree adjusting mechanism. Highlighting, that the movement provided to the members 12 a & 12 b is up and down / vertical used to restrict the flow of material through the chamber at the kneading sections of the screw. As such, each kneading degree adjusting mechanism is understood to comprises mobile elements that move by a vertically linear movement / up and down movement with respect central axis of screw and outlet.
([0052]) teaches that (Fig. 2) is a sectional view of the kneading degree adjusting mechanism in a fully closed condition. Where movement provided by the kneading degree adjusting mechanism via the driveshafts is understood to be that of a linear motion.
([0053]) teaches that (Fig. 3) is a sectional view of the kneading degree adjusting mechanism in a fully open condition.
([0083]) teaches that the traveling member 25 a is screwed together with the upper driving shaft 26 a moves upwards, while the lower traveling member 25 b screwed together with the lower driving shaft 26 b moves downwards. As a result, the kneading degree adjusting members 12 moves away from the outer periphery surface of the push-back section 11 and the kneading degree adjusting members 12 assume the open condition. Accordingly, as seen in (Figs. 2-3) the adjusting members 12 is found to be screwed together into the traveling member and driving shaft. As such, the adjusting members 12 is found to be an interchangeable mobile sleeve.
& p.) ([0091]) teaches that a third embodiment illustrated in (Fig. 6) provides for a different kneading degree adjusting mechanism over the kneading degree adjusting mechanism 1 of the above first embodiment. The difference being that the opposed surfaces 15 of the kneading degree adjusting members 12 are provided to confront the entire axial area of the outer periphery surface of the push-back section 11 and also confronts the kneading section 10 positioned upstream of the push-back section 11. In other words, the upstream end of the push-back section 11 is positioned downstream of the upstream end of the opposed surface 15 of each kneading degree adjusting member 12 and the kneading degree adjusting members 12 are each formed longer than the push-back section 11 axially. As such, the first and third embodiments provide for two (different) kneading degree adjusting mechanisms with varying opposed surface 15 that comprise a support surface of a predetermined surface area.([0117]) teaches that although in the above embodiments there is shown an example in which one kneading degree adjusting mechanism 1 is provided at a position corresponding to an axially intermediate portion of the kneading screws 4, plural kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4. Accordingly, as best illustrated in (Figs. 5 – 6) collectively implementing both of the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms would provide for a plurality of kneading degree adjusting mechanisms provides for each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area, and each of the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the each of the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other. The case law for change in size or change in shape may be recited. Where the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144. Adding, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, the case law for intended use may be recited. Where, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235
([0066]) teaches that the material M is kneaded while undergoing a shear force. As such, kneaded is understood to provide a stress shearing force, namely when a shear force is applied, it induces a shear stress within the material. Recalling, that elasticity = stress / strain. ([0086]) teaches that if the kneading degree adjusting members 12 are opened or closed, the degree of kneading of the material M changes linearly. As such, the time and the total amount of shear stress a material M undergoes is understood to impacted by the kneading degree adjusting members.
With ([0092]) teaching that by making each kneading degree adjusting member 12 longer than the push-back section 11 axially, when the channel is opened for adjusting the degree of kneading, it is possible to weaken the kneading action for the material M at the kneading degree adjusting member 12 which is formed longer than the push-back section 11. As such, by changing the adjusting member 12 the shear stress a material undergoes is understood to be altered.With ([0098]) teaching that the degree of kneading can be evaluated, for example, in terms of dispersibility of the kneaded material, a mixing degree showing how uniform the material became, or a retention time or a retention condition. In this example there is used a degree of kneading obtained from a difference in pressure between the upstream side and the downstream side of the kneading degree adjusting mechanism.
As such, the type of kneading degree adjusting members 12 implemented is understood to tailor and adjust the shear force which impacts the degree of kneading which itself is reflected in the how uniform the material mixture became after processing. Accordingly, the at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer is understood to be based on / derived from the impact the shearing force it provides / elasticity that the material mixture will experience in the kneading section and thus modify the degree of homogeneity the material mixture may achieve. Consequently, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (ССРА 1980). Additionally, and/or alternatively, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (ССРА 1976).Additionally, the ability of the adjusting members 12 to be replaced with a replacement part is understood to be an intended use of extrusion machine / the adjusting members 12 (which possess the ability to be replaced / exchanged). As such, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo. By modifying the extrusion device to comprise kneading degree adjusting mechanisms, as taught by Yamaguchi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms on the extruder as it provides for improving the operability in adjusting the degree of kneading is improved, ([0089]), where the degree of kneading can be evaluated, for example, in terms of dispersibility of the kneaded material, a mixing degree showing how uniform the material became, or a retention time or a retention condition, ([0089]). As such, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms provides for tailoring the degree of kneading/ retention time, amongst other attributes which are understood to impact the degree of mixing the composition and constituents experience.Regarding Claim 1, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve with various surface area on the extruder. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into а shaped object, (Abstract) Yamada suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve with various surface area on the extruder, and in this regard, Yamada teaches the following:
(Fig. 1 – 4) show various kneading degree adjusting apparatus embodiments. As detailed, each of these various degree adjusting apparatus comprises a plurality of gate members 14a and 14b in the same guide holes 17 and 18, depending on the kneading section’s 8 configuration. As such, the at least one mobile sleeve is an interchangeable mobile sleeve of a plurality of interchangeable mobile sleeves.
([0025]) teaches that the kneading section 8 may be formed by a plurality of kneading disc segments or formed by both the rotor segments 11 and the kneading disc segments. ([0041]) teaches that the concave part 16 is formed by depressing a part of the outer circumference 15 of the cylindrical segment 13 (a center part in the axial direction in the present embodiment) in the axially perpendicular direction. The concave part 16 is formed annularly around the rotation axis of the kneading screws 4. ([0046]) teaches that the gate members 14a and 14b are provided with a convex part 21 is provided with convex side faces 25 provided adjacent to the upstream side and the downstream side of the protruding face 24. (Claim 4) teaches a plurality of said convex parts and a plurality of said concave parts are provided in line in the axial direction of the kneading screw. As such, the gate members 14a and 14b are each provided with surfaces with a predetermined surface area.
([0048]) teaches that protruding height of the convex part 21, that is, a distance between the protruding face 24 and a part of the opposed face 20 excluding the convex part 21 in the axially perpendicular direction is set to be a larger value than the clearance Δ between the gate member 14 and the cylindrical segment 13 when the gate member 14 is moved the closest to the cylindrical segment 13, that is, the minimum value of the clearance Δ. In the present embodiment, the minimum value of the clearance Δ is 1% to 3% of the screw diameter, and the protruding height of the convex part 21 is set to be the larger value than the minimum value of the clearance Δ, specifically the value of 2% to 5% of the screw diameter. Thereby, the protruding face 24 of the convex part 21 passes over the outer circumference 15 of the cylindrical segment 13 and comes into the concave part 16 in the gate close state. Due to this, the material is prevented from linearly flowing between the convex part 21 and the concave part 16 along the axial direction, and the material reliably flows and meanders to go by the convex part 21. As a result, the passage resistance can be increased. As such, the predetermined surface area, in particular the height of the convex part 21, is understood to impact the minimum value of the clearance Δ. Accordingly, case law for result effective variables may be recited regarding the predetermined surface area implemented. Where, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (ССРА 1980). Additionally, the case law for the change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (ССРА 1976).
(Fig. 1 – 4) show various kneading degree adjusting apparatus embodiments. As detailed, each of these various degree adjusting apparatus comprises a plurality of gate members 14a and 14b in the same guide holes 17 and 18, depending on the kneading section’s 8 configuration. ([0078]) adding that the present invention is not limited to the above embodiments but may be approximately modified in terms of shapes, structure, materials and combination of the members within a range in which the gist of the invention is not altered. As such, the at least one mobile sleeve is an interchangeable mobile sleeve of a plurality of interchangeable mobile sleeves utilized based on the configuration of the kneading section’s 8 configuration. Additionally, the ability of the adjusting members 12 to be replaced with a replacement part is understood to be an intended use of extrusion machine / the adjusting members 12 (which possess the ability to be replaced / exchanged). As such, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise kneading degree adjusting mechanisms, as taught by Yamada. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms on the extruder as it provides for improving the operability in adjusting the degree of kneading is improved, ([0089]), where the degree of kneading can be evaluated, for example, in terms of dispersibility of the kneaded material, a mixing degree showing how uniform the material became, or a retention time or a retention condition, ([0089]). As such, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms provides for tailoring the degree of kneading/ retention time, amongst other attributes which are understood to impact the degree of mixing the composition and constituents experience.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
In which at least two mobile sleeves are installed in the mixer.
Regarding Claim 2, Colombo is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
([0117]) teaches that although in the above embodiments there is shown an example in which one kneading degree adjusting mechanism is provided at a position corresponding to an axially intermediate portion of the kneading screws 4, plural kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
In which the at least two mobile sleeves are arranged in a top and bottom arrangement relative to the outlet.
Regarding Claim 3, Colombo is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
As shown in (Figs. 1-3) collectively, the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms are found to open and close in a top-down fashion in relation to the outlet.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the linear movement of the at least two mobile sleeves is selected from simultaneous movement, reciprocating movement, and random movement.
Regarding Claim 4, Colombo is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
([0075] teaches that the upper member 12 a of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driving shaft 29 via the upper traveling member 25 a, the upper driving shaft 26 a and the upper gear box 27 a (see FIG. 4) which are disposed above the upper member 12 a. The lower member 12 b of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driven shaft 30 via the lower traveling member 25 b, the lower driving shaft 26 b and the lower gear box 27 b (see FIG. 4) which are disposed below the lower member 12 b. ([0079]) teaches that when the adjusting handle 33 is rotated in a predetermined direction, not only the driving shaft 29 rotates but also the driven shaft 30 rotates in synchronism with the driving shaft 29. As shown in (Figs. 5-6) each of the kneading degree adjusting member is found to adjust simultaneously via the drive shafts. As such, the linear movement of the mobile sleeves is understood to be a simultaneous movement.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
B.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Yamada and in further view of Sakamoto et al. (US 20190193036 А1, hereinafter Sakamoto)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising a ram with an inner surface having a shape that is complementary to an outer contour of the two screws,
the ram being movable inside the introduction hopper between a raised position,
where the two screws remain accessible for introducing the rubber mixture, and
a lowered position,
where the inner surface of the ram forms an upper part of the mixer.
Regarding Claim 5, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada is silent on a ram moving inside the introduction hopper. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material, Sakamoto suggests details regarding implementing a weighted ram that moves through the hopper, and in this regard, Sakamoto teaches the following:
([0028]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 2) a ram weight 7 for pressuring unvulcanized rubber material G in the mixing chamber 6. Noting, that the ram weight is provided with an inner surface shape that is complementary to an outer contour of the two screws.
& d.) ([0028]) teaches that an elevating device & is provided for moving the ram weight 7 up and down.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1-2), with the dotted ram weight 7 in the upwards position, a space is provided such that the two screws remain accessible. With ([0028]) teaching the extruder the conveyor 4 is provided for carrying the unvulcanized rubber material G to the mixer 2.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1-2), with the ram weight 7 in the downwards position, the inner surface of the ram forms an upper part of the mixer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise a ram weight, as taught by Sakamoto. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a ram weight with the extrusion hopper as it provides for improve mixing efficiency and kneading efficiency of the mixing rotors 9, ([0032]).
C.) Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubaldo Colombo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Yamada and in further view of Sakamoto and in further view of Roberto Pessina (EP 3359361 B1, hereinafter Pessina)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Further comprising a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers arranged just downstream of the outlet to form a sheet of the rubber mixture discharged from the mixer.
Regarding Claim 6, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi, Yamada and Sakamoto is silent on implementing a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Pessina suggests details regarding implementing a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers and in this regard, Pessina teaches the following:
([0135]) teaches that the extruder comprises a sheeting device 301 (by way of example a calender, as shown in (Fig. 1), or an open mixer with counter-rotating rollers or open mill, not shown) arranged downstream of the twin-screw conical mixer. ([0150]) adds that the flow of material is shaped as a sheet by calender 301.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi, Yamada and Sakamoto. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise a set of counter-rotating rollers at the end of the extruder, as taught by Pessina. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a set of counter-rotating rollers provides for shaping the material into a sheet, ([0150]).
D.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Yamada and in further view of Charles Dellenbarger (US 2466934 A, hereinafter Dellenbarger)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the two screws are mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially surfaces of the opposite screw so that the two screws remain substantially in contact with each other when rotating the two screws at an angle and at a center distance that facilitates self-cleaning.
Regarding Claim 7, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada is silent on screws being mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Dellenbarger suggests details regarding screws being mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially and in this regard, Dellenbarger teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 20-30) teaches that A further object is to employ two conical screw impellers arranged with their axes forming an acute angle and having a common vertex the lateral conical surfaces of said impellers positioned tangent to each other, whereby the blades of the adjacent impellers will act together upon the material with it gradually increasing impelling force as the material is acted upon by the reduced area of the blades of the impellers adjacent to the apexes of the latter. Accordingly, regarding the self-cleaning aspect provided by the threads of each screw contacting tangentially. The case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (ССРА 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CСРA 1977). V
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise two conical screw that are tangent as taught by Dellenbarger. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement two conical screw that are tangent provides for gradually increasing impelling force as the material is acted upon by the reduced area of the blades, (Col. 1, lines 20-30)
E.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Yamada and in further view of Helmuth Schulz (US 20090040867 A1, hereinafter Schulz)Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the two screws are mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially surfaces of the opposite screw so that the two screws remain substantially in contact with each other when rotating the two screws at an angle and at a center distance that facilitates self-cleaning.
Regarding Claim 7, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada is silent on the self-cleaning aspect screws. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Schulz suggest details regarding the self-cleaning aspect screws and in this regard, Schulz teaches the following:
([0008]) teaches that a running enlargement and reduction of the flank play from one screw to the other results, i.e., an oscillating change of the gap width, by which a very high degree of mixing and thus better processing of the material is achieved upon every revolution of the screws, because a squeezing and/or kneading action also results in the axial direction upon every revolution of the screws. In addition, the convergence of adjacent screw channels when the gap is reduced also causes a desirable self-cleaning effect. As such, the distance between screws is understood impact the self-cleaning effect of screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and to extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise an optimized distance between screws, as taught by Schulz. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimize the distance between screws as it provides for realizing a self-cleaning effect of screws, ([0008]).F.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Yamaguchi in view of Yamada in view of Dellenbarger and in further view of Mauro Giani (EP 0775568 B1, hereinafter Giani)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein the two screws an interpenetrated profile, a conjugate profile, or both.
Regarding Claim 8, Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada is silent on the type of profiles the screws comprise. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Giani suggests details regarding the types of profiles the screws can comprise and, in this regard, Giani teaches the following:
([0003]) teaches that for conical twin-screw extruder machines in which two threaded shafts, known as rotors must be made to rotate at a low number of revolutions and must rotate in a synchronized manner with respect to one another so as to maintain the angular phase difference which is predefined during assembly of the machine so as to avoid interference between the threading of the two rotors - interference which would prevent rotation of the latter particularly in the case of rotors of the interpenetrating type. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 2) the screws are shown to be of an interpenetrated profile type of arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Yamaguchi and Yamada. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise screw comprising an interpenetrated type of arrangement, as taught by Giani. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement screws with an interpenetrated type of arrangement allow for a conical twin-screw extruder that rotate at a low number of revolutions and rotate in a synchronized manner, ([0003]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).G.) Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski (US 20070177450 A1, hereinafter Borzenski)Regarding claim 1,
A mixing and extrusion machine for producing a rubber mixture, the mixing and extrusion machine comprising:
an introduction hopper; and
a mixer,
the mixer being a converging conical twin-screw mixer including:
sleeves in which two screws are mounted at an angle between an opening and an outlet,
the two screws having an upstream portion and a downstream portion,
the opening being disposed at the upstream portion of the two screws and connected to the introduction hopper for the introduction hopper to feed the two screws,
the outlet being disposed downstream of the sleeves to discharge the rubber mixture at the end of a mixing cycle;
one or more motors coupled to the two screws to rotate the two screws in the sleeves during the mixing cycle,
one or more movable doors provided at the outlet and movable to allow, at the end of the mixing cycle, the discharge and shaping of the rubber mixture; and
at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer at the downstream portion of the two screws,
each mobile sleeve movable by linear movement with respect to the outlet to adjust a predetermined space between the respective mobile sleeve and the two screws,
the linear movement being defined between a closed position of the respective mobile sleeve to facilitate mixing of the rubber mixture, and
an open position of the respective mobile sleeve to facilitate the flow of the rubber mixture inside the mixer,
wherein the at least one mobile sleeve is an interchangeable mobile sleeve of a plurality of interchangeable mobile sleeves,
each interchangeable mobile sleeve having a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer, the support surface having a respective predetermined surface area,
the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, and
wherein the at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer is based on the elasticity of the rubber mixture.
Colombo teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches the mixer comprises a fixed base 1, from whose front end a post rises that supports a twin-screw body 2 provided with a feedbox 3. Where the feedbox 3 acts as a hopper.
& c.) (Abstract) teaches that a dump extruder with conical converging twin screws 10 arranged in a batching chamber 12 in which the outlet of the dump extruder is temporarily closed by a removable blind flange 11, the batching chamber also acting as a compounding chamber. As such, the conical converging twin screw extruder is understood to be a mixer.
([0020]) teaches that the batching chamber 12 opens towards the feed box 3 through a mouthpiece 12 a. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the twin screws are mounted within a twin-screw body 2. Where the twin-screw body 2 acts as applicant's sleeves in which two screws are mounted at an angle between an opening / mouthpiece 12 a of the feedbox and an outlet of the sleeves closed by a removable blind flange 11.
([0025]) teaches that the conical screws 10 are arranged in the twin-screw body 2 so as to graze with their front end the blind flange 11. As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the screw is shown to have an upstream portion and a downstream portion.
As illustrated in (Fig. 1 & 3 – 4) the feed box 3 opening / mouthpiece 12 a is found to be at the upstream portion of the two screws and connected to the feed box / introduction hopper for the introduction hopper to feed the two screws.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1 & 3 – 4), the outlet of the sleeves closed by a removable blind flange 11 is found downstream of the sleeves to discharge the rubber mixture at the end of a mixing cycle.
([0024]) teaches that starting of the motor and the resulting opposed rotation of the conical screws 10 pushes the material to be mixed towards the outlet and forces the material to recirculate backwards towards the chamber for further mixing.
([0021] – [0026]) teaches the flange 11 can be easily removed, in order to keep the outlet closed, as long as desired during the mixing step, while it can be removed to allow the extruded material to come out at the end of compounding.
Regarding Claim 1, Colombo is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and details regarding the mobile sleeves being interchangeable mobile sleeves and the predetermined surface area of the mobile sleeves. In analogous art for an extruder that comprises an internal batch mixers with tangential rotors, (Abstract), Borzenski suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Borzenski teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that as shown in FIG. 1, a high intensity internal mixing machine of the batch type, generally indicated at 20, in which a vertically reciprocatable ram 24 embodying the present invention is movable between a raised position shown in FIG. 1 and a lowered operating position 24′ shown in dashed outline. This ram 24 is used to move ingredients to be mixed down into a mixing chamber 26. With ([0040]) adding that the mixed and homogenized materials (shown) are discharged from the bottom of the mixing chamber 26 through a discharge opening normally closed by a door 42 which is held in its closed position during mixing operation by a locking mechanism 44. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Figs. 1 – 2) the vertically reciprocal ram 24 act as applicant’s mobile sleeve that are found to be in the downstream section of the two rotors 21 and 22, where the discharge opening door 42 is located. Accordingly, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding Borzenski teaching at least one mobile sleeve installed in the mixer at the downstream portion of the two screws. Nevertheless, if it is found that Borzenski does not teach the aforementioned placement of the at least one mobile sleeve. The case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
([0042]) teaches that the ram includes four vertical surfaces 47, 48, 49 and 50 to guide the ram in the hopper 30 and two downward facing surfaces 51 and 52 that conforms generally to the top of the mixing chamber 29 and applies pressure to the ingredients when the ram is lowered. As such, the mobile ram is movable by linear movement with respect to the discharge opening door 42 to adjust a predetermined space between the respective mobile ram and the two rotors 21 and 22.
([0043]) teaches that when the ram 224 is lowered into the mixing chamber surfaces 251 to 256 close the ingredients-receiving opening of the mixer and form the top of the mixing chamber and apply pressure to the ingredients. As such, the ram’s linear movement is defined between a closed position of to facilitate mixing of the rubber mixture.
([0038]) teaches that vertically reciprocatable ram 24 embodying the present invention is movable between a raised position shown in FIG. 1. ([0039]) teaches that after the mixing operation has been completed, the ram is retracted back up to its raised position. As such, the ram’s linear movement is defined between an open position to facilitate the flow of the rubber mixture inside the mixer.
([0006]) teaches that the ram are either horizontal such that they do not protrude into the mixing chamber at all or are otherwise shaped such that they protrude into the mixing chamber less than the apex of the central portion of the ram. A mixer utilizing the improved ram substantially reduces the rotational forces on the ram, producing lower noise levels and reduces wear and impact damage. At the same time, the improved ram provides similar dispersive mixing and improved distributive mixing characteristics to a traditional “V” shape ram that extends into the mixing chamber an equal distance along the entire lateral bottom surface of the ram.
, p.) & q.) ([0043]) teaches that (Figs. 4A, 4B & 4C) show one embodiment of a ram 224 of this invention. ([0044]) teaches that (Figs. 5A, 5B & 5C) show a second embodiment of the ram 324 of this invention attached to the rod 38. With ([0039]) teaching that the ram is secured to the lower end of the rod 38. As such, the rams are understood to be secured to the rods. Accordingly, each mobile sleeve has a support surface of a predetermined surface area. With, (Figs. 1 – 2) illustrating a ram with a support surface that faces one of the two screws when installed in the mixer. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the respective predetermined surface area of the interchangeable mobile sleeves being different from each other to use in the mixing and extrusion machine for different rubber mixtures having different elasticities, the case law for intended use may be recited. Where, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo. By modifying the batch extrusion device to comprise a ram that is interchangeable and the ram comprising an optimized shape, as taught by Borzenski. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a ram that is interchangeable and the ram comprising an optimized shape as it provides for a mixer utilizing the improved ram substantially reduces the rotational forces on the ram, producing lower noise levels and reduces wear and impact damage. At the same time, the improved ram provides similar dispersive mixing and improved distributive mixing characteristics to a traditional “V” shape ram that extends into the mixing chamber an equal distance along the entire lateral bottom surface of the ram, ([0006]). H.) Claim(s) 2 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski and in further view of YamaguchiRegarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
In which at least two mobile sleeves are installed in the mixer.
Regarding Claim 2, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
([0117]) teaches that although in the above embodiments there is shown an example in which one kneading degree adjusting mechanism is provided at a position corresponding to an axially intermediate portion of the kneading screws 4, plural kneading degree adjusting mechanisms 1 may be disposed at plural axial positions of the kneading screws 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo. By modifying the extrusion device to comprise kneading degree adjusting mechanisms, as taught by Yamaguchi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms on the extruder as it provides for improving the operability in adjusting the degree of kneading is improved, ([0089]), where the degree of kneading can be evaluated, for example, in terms of dispersibility of the kneaded material, a mixing degree showing how uniform the material became, or a retention time or a retention condition, ([0089]). As such, one would be motivated to implement a kneading degree adjusting mechanisms provides for tailoring the degree of kneading/ retention time, amongst other attributes which are understood to impact the degree of mixing the composition and constituents experience.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2,
In which the at least two mobile sleeves are arranged in a top and bottom arrangement relative to the outlet.
Regarding Claim 3, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
As shown in (Figs. 1-3) collectively, the kneading degree adjusting mechanisms are found to open and close in a top-down fashion in relation to the outlet.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the linear movement of the at least two mobile sleeves is selected from simultaneous movement, reciprocating movement, and random movement.
Regarding Claim 4, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Yamaguchi suggests details regarding implementing a mobile sleeve on the extruder and in this regard, Yamaguchi teaches the following:
([0075] teaches that the upper member 12 a of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driving shaft 29 via the upper traveling member 25 a, the upper driving shaft 26 a and the upper gear box 27 a (see FIG. 4) which are disposed above the upper member 12 a. The lower member 12 b of the kneading degree adjusting member 12 is connected to the driven shaft 30 via the lower traveling member 25 b, the lower driving shaft 26 b and the lower gear box 27 b (see FIG. 4) which are disposed below the lower member 12 b. ([0079]) teaches that when the adjusting handle 33 is rotated in a predetermined direction, not only the driving shaft 29 rotates but also the driven shaft 30 rotates in synchronism with the driving shaft 29. As shown in (Figs. 5-6) each of the kneading degree adjusting member is found to adjust simultaneously via the drive shafts. As such, the linear movement of the mobile sleeves is understood to be a simultaneous movement.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
I.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski and in further view of Sakamoto
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising a ram with an inner surface having a shape that is complementary to an outer contour of the two screws,
the ram being movable inside the introduction hopper between a raised position,
where the two screws remain accessible for introducing the rubber mixture, and
a lowered position,
where the inner surface of the ram forms an upper part of the mixer.
Regarding Claim 5, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on a ram moving inside the introduction hopper. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material, Sakamoto suggests details regarding implementing a weighted ram that moves through the hopper, and in this regard, Sakamoto teaches the following:
([0028]) teaches that as illustrated in (Fig. 2) a ram weight 7 for pressuring unvulcanized rubber material G in the mixing chamber 6. Noting, that the ram weight is provided with an inner surface shape that is complementary to an outer contour of the two screws.
& d.) ([0028]) teaches that an elevating device & is provided for moving the ram weight 7 up and down.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1-2), with the dotted ram weight 7 in the upwards position, a space is provided such that the two screws remain accessible. With ([0028]) teaching the extruder the conveyor 4 is provided for carrying the unvulcanized rubber material G to the mixer 2.
As illustrated in (Figs. 1-2), with the ram weight 7 in the downwards position, the inner surface of the ram forms an upper part of the mixer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo in view of Borzenski. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise a ram weight, as taught by Sakamoto. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a ram weight with the extrusion hopper as it provides for improve mixing efficiency and kneading efficiency of the mixing rotors 9, ([0032]).
J.) Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski and in further view of Sakamoto and in further view of Pessina
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5,
Further comprising a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers arranged just downstream of the outlet to form a sheet of the rubber mixture discharged from the mixer.
Regarding Claim 6, Colombo as modified by Borzenski and Sakamoto is silent on implementing a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Pessina suggests details regarding implementing a roller nose system comprising two counter-rotating rollers and in this regard, Pessina teaches the following:
([0135]) teaches that the extruder comprises a sheeting device 301 (by way of example a calender, as shown in (Fig. 1), or an open mixer with counter-rotating rollers or open mill, not shown) arranged downstream of the twin-screw conical mixer. ([0150]) adds that the flow of material is shaped as a sheet by calender 301.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Borzenski and Sakamoto. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise a set of counter-rotating rollers at the end of the extruder, as taught by Pessina. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a set of counter-rotating rollers provides for shaping the material into a sheet, ([0150]).
K.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski and in further view of Dellenbarger
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the two screws are mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially surfaces of the opposite screw so that the two screws remain substantially in contact with each other when rotating the two screws at an angle and at a center distance that facilitates self-cleaning.
Regarding Claim 7, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on screws being mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Dellenbarger suggests details regarding screws being mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially and in this regard, Dellenbarger teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 20-30) teaches that A further object is to employ two conical screw impellers arranged with their axes forming an acute angle and having a common vertex the lateral conical surfaces of said impellers positioned tangent to each other, whereby the blades of the adjacent impellers will act together upon the material with it gradually increasing impelling force as the material is acted upon by the reduced area of the blades of the impellers adjacent to the apexes of the latter. Accordingly, regarding the self-cleaning aspect provided by the threads of each screw contacting tangentially. The case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (ССРА 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CСРA 1977). V
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws Colombo in view of Borzenski. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise two conical screw that are tangent as taught by Dellenbarger. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement two conical screw that are tangent provides for gradually increasing impelling force as the material is acted upon by the reduced area of the blades, (Col. 1, lines 20-30)
L.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski and in further view of Schulz Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the two screws are mounted in the mixer so that the threads of each screw contact tangentially surfaces of the opposite screw so that the two screws remain substantially in contact with each other when rotating the two screws at an angle and at a center distance that facilitates self-cleaning.
Regarding Claim 7, Colombo as modified by Borzenski is silent on the self-cleaning aspect screws. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Schulz suggest details regarding the self-cleaning aspect screws and in this regard, Schulz teaches the following:
([0008]) teaches that a running enlargement and reduction of the flank play from one screw to the other results, i.e., an oscillating change of the gap width, by which a very high degree of mixing and thus better processing of the material is achieved upon every revolution of the screws, because a squeezing and/or kneading action also results in the axial direction upon every revolution of the screws. In addition, the convergence of adjacent screw channels when the gap is reduced also causes a desirable self-cleaning effect. As such, the distance between screws is understood impact the self-cleaning effect of screws.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and to extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo in view of Borzenski. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise an optimized distance between screws, as taught by Schulz. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimize the distance between screws as it provides for realizing a self-cleaning effect of screws, ([0008]).M.) Claim(s) 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colombo in view of Borzenski in view of Dellenbarger and in further view of Giani
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7,
Wherein the two screws an interpenetrated profile, a conjugate profile, or both.
Regarding Claim 8, Colombo as modified by Borzenski and Dellenbarger is silent on the type of profiles the screws comprise. In analogous art for an extruder that is utilized to as a means for mixing material into a shaped object, Giani suggests details regarding the types of profiles the screws can comprise and, in this regard, Giani teaches the following:
([0003]) teaches that for conical twin-screw extruder machines in which two threaded shafts, known as rotors must be made to rotate at a low number of revolutions and must rotate in a synchronized manner with respect to one another so as to maintain the angular phase difference which is predefined during assembly of the machine so as to avoid interference between the threading of the two rotors - interference which would prevent rotation of the latter particularly in the case of rotors of the interpenetrating type. Highlighting, as shown in (Fig. 2) the screws are shown to be of an interpenetrated profile type of arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for mixing and extrusion of rubber-based and silicone-based plastic materials the extruder comprising twin screws of Colombo as modified by Borzenski and Dellenbarger. By further modifying the extrusion device to comprise screw comprising an interpenetrated type of arrangement, as taught by Giani. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement screws with an interpenetrated type of arrangement allow for a conical twin-screw extruder that rotate at a low number of revolutions and rotate in a synchronized manner, ([0003]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result allows for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
George Briggs (US 4007545 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the pressure and temperature and in some cases the flow rate of fluids such as polymers are controlled by reducing the cross-sectional area of the conduit carrying the fluid to provide a flow channel communicating with the inner surface of the conduit whose cross-sectional area is less than that of the conduit.
Jan Boguslawski (US 4462691 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) An extruder, including a rotor and a barrel, having mixing or working zones therein in which the material being mixed or worked is transferred layer by layer from upstream grooves in the rotor to input grooves in the barrel, and from output grooves in the barrel, which grooves are interleaved with the input grooves.
Henry Ellwood (US 4640672 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) an extruder (2) comprising an extruder barrel comprising a plurality of barrel modules (4), each provided with an inner lining material (16), and at least one plate (6) is described. Such an arrangement facilitates assembly and dismantling of the barrel for replacement of inner parts. In a preferred embodiment, a plate (6) having an opening (26) passing therethrough and comprising projections (30) extending into said opening,
Renard et al. (US 20170165872 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a mixing and extrusion machine for tire sealant materials of the type comprising: a dump extruder equipped with conical converging twin screws located in a batching chamber, said chamber having a low-pressure feeding area and a high pressure ducted area.
Wilson Bell (US 4620793 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a mixing device is provided having spaced end frames and side walls defining an internal mixing chamber and a removable hopper affixed thereto for receiving material to be fed into the chamber. A weight extends into the hopper and the chamber to force the material through the hopper and into the mixing chamber. A sleeve is provided to protect the internal portion of the mixer within the end frames from abrasion due to sidewise motion of the weight during mixing and extend upward into the hopper to inhibit relative motion between the hopper and the mixer frames and side walls during the mixing process.
Narku Nortey (US 4834543 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a four-wing, non-intermeshing rotors are optimized for synchronous rotation to be driven by synchronous drive means at a constant 180° phase angle, there being two long wings and two short wings on each rotor. A first long wing and first short wing originate at a first end of each rotor, and a second long wing and second short wing originate at the second end of each rotor, the helix angle "A" being the same for all wings on both rotors,
James Matsuoka (US 3572645 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) an apparatus for mixing rubbers, elastomers, plastics, and similar material, preferably of the internal mixer type, such as Banbury type mixer, having frame structure forming a mixing chamber, rotors within the mixing chamber for mixing materials therein, a material charging hopper mounted on the frame structure above the mixing chamber and having a charging conduit communicating with the mixing chamber and a floating weight or member movable for applying pressure on the material to be mixed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)-272-1000.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights