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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (5 – 4 – 2026) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (5 – 4 – 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Cernohous et al. (US 20130276670 A1, hereinafter Cernohous) / Cernohous as modified does not teach the newly amended feature of wherein the foamed extrudate is a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Cernohous / Cernohous as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
As noted in the prior action Cernohous discloses the entirety of applicant’s method including the same materials utilized. Specifically, generating a first melt in the main melting device from a first meltable starting material, generating a second melt in the auxiliary melting device from a second meltable starting material by either adding at least one reactive additive to the second meltable starting material or using a second meltable starting material containing the at least one reactive additive, wherein the second meltable starting material differs chemically from the first meltable starting material, introducing the additive-containing second melt in the main melting device and mixing with the first melt to form the foamed extrudate. It is understood that the extrudate produced by Cernohous would be the same as applicant’s extrudate, namely, that the foamed extrudate produced would be a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers. Accordingly, 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 (CCPA 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 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. In summary, the method provided by Cernohous is understood to be identical to that of applicant’s method and thus the method of Cernohous is understood to produce an identical foamed extrudate i.e., a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers, thus production of a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers is understood to be disclosed.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Cernohous / Cernohous as modified.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the main melting device 1 is supplied with a melt instead of a solid, ([0040]), also failing to be shown is the additive-containing second melt 14 can also be added to a section of the main melting device 1 which is located between the degassing opening and the outlet end 15. Mixing devices 7, 8 or a cooling device 9 can be provided as in the first embodiment. A mixing device and/or a cooling device can follow after the main melting device, ([0055]), also failing to be shown is as in (Fig. 1), a first mixing device 7 can be provided, which is not shown in the drawing, ([0060]), also failing to be shown is a physical blowing agent can be metered into the first melt the main melting device 1 or downstream of the main melting device 1, ([0062]), as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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, 3, 4 – 6, 8 – 9 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous et al. (US 20130276670 A1, hereinafter Cernohous) as evidenced by Helland et al. (US 20070161739 A1, hereinafter Helland) and as further evidenced by Rolf Heusser (US 20150087733 A1, hereinafter Heusser)Regarding claim 1,
A method for producing a foamed extrudate, comprising
a main melting device and
an auxiliary melting device,
the method comprising:
generating a first melt in the main melting device from a first meltable starting material,
generating a second melt in the auxiliary melting device from a second meltable starting material by either adding at least one reactive additive to the second meltable starting material or using a second meltable starting material containing the at least one reactive additive,
by selecting the at least one reactive additive from a group consisting of a chemical blowing agent and an active nucleating agent, and
wherein the second meltable starting material differs chemically from the first meltable starting material,
melting the second meltable starting material and the at least one reactive additive in the auxiliary melting device to form the second melt,
so that an additive-containing second melt containing the at least one reactive additive is obtained in the auxiliary melting device,
which is added to the first melt produced in the main melting device, and
introducing the additive-containing second melt in the main melting device and
mixing with the first melt to form the foamed extrudate,
wherein the foamed extrudate is a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers.
Cernohous teaches the following:
& c.) ([0079]) teaches the material from the twin screw extruder is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. Where the twin screw extruder, i.e., the twin screw extruder 100 acts as applicant’s main melting device. This is best illustrated in (Fig. 10). In summary, twin screw extruder 100 / a main melting device is provided for generating a first melt in the main melting device from a first meltable starting material is understood to be disclosed.
([0079]) teaches the material from the twin screw extruder is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added. through hopper 122. Where the second twin screw extruder 120 acts as applicant’s auxiliary melting device. In summary, second twin screw extruder 120 / an auxiliary melting device is understood to be disclosed.
([0079]) teaches that the material from the twin screw extruder is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. As such, generating a second melt in the auxiliary melting device from polymer / a second meltable starting material is understood to be disclosed. ([0045]) notes that fillers and fibers other than chemical wood pulp fibers may be added to the fiber/polymer blend to impart desirable physical characteristics or to reduce the amount of polymer needed for a given application. Non-limiting examples of fillers and fibers include calcium carbonate and talc amongst others. As such, the polymer blend / a second meltable starting material is understood to comprise at least one reactive additive namely talc. In summary, generating a second melt in the auxiliary melting device from a second meltable starting material by either adding at least calcium carbonate and/or Talc / one reactive additive to the second meltable starting material or using a second meltable starting material containing the calcium carbonate and/or Talc / at least one reactive additive is understood to be disclosed.
As noted above ([0045]) teaches fillers and fibers include calcium carbonate, talc, silica, clay, magnesium hydroxide, and aluminum trihydroxide. ([0046]) teaches other types of additives include fibers, blowing agents, foaming additives. As such, the use of calcium carbonate is understood to be reactive additive consisting of an active nucleating agent in the melt. Highlighting, calcium carbonate and talc are understood to be reactive additives in particular active nucleating agent for polymers like PLA, poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), polypropylene and High-density polyethylene (HDPE). Noting that the use of many of these polymers is disclosed on ([0037]). Highlighting evidence provided by Helland which states in the (Abstract) talc as a nucleating agent for linear low-density polyethylene formed from ethylene. ([0004]) notes that High density polyethylene is considered difficult to nucleate since it has a high crystal growth rate, however, some moderately effectively agents have been identified, e.g. potassium stearate, benzoic acid, sodium benzoate, talc and sodium carbonate. As such, Talc is understood to be a nucleating agent for both linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and High-density polyethylene (HDPE). As such, the second meltable starting material and the at least one reactive additive comprising calcium carbonate and/or Talc is understood to form the second melt in the auxiliary melting device. In summary, selecting the at least one reactive additive i.e., calcium carbonate and/or Talc which is a from a group consisting of a chemical blowing agent and an active nucleating agent, in particular an active nucleating agent for both linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is understood to be disclosed.
Recalling, ([0043] – [0046]) teaching that the extruder 100 acting as the auxiliary melting device may comprises additives, that those skilled in the art of melt processing are capable of selecting appropriate amounts and types of additives to match with a specific polymeric matrix in order to achieve desired physical properties of the finished material. As such, a case when no additives are used is also disclosed. In particular, ([0079]) teaches that the material from the twin screw extruder is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. Other components may be added as well, either to the throat or through a side-stuffer (not shown in figure). The amount of polymer added is the amount required to provide the desired wood pulp fiber loading in the composite. ([0081]) teaches that additional additives may also be added in the second twin screw extruder acting as applicant’s the auxiliary melting device. As such, by adding additional additives at either extruder, it is understood to provide two melts that differ from one another. Accordingly, one would be motivated to optimize the type and amount of additives implemented due to the impact on the achieved and desired physical properties of the finished material. In summary, the second meltable starting material differing chemically from the first meltable starting material is understood to be disclosed.
([0079]) teaches that the material from the twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. Other components may be added as well, either to the throat or through a side-stuffer (not shown in figure). ([0081]) teaches that the additional additives may also be added in the second twin screw extruder. Recalling, that ([0045]) lists various types of additives and notes that the amount and type of conventional additives in the melt processable composition may vary depending upon the polymeric matrix and the desired physical properties of the finished composition. As such, while the (base) polymer may be the same, the use of additional / different additives provides for tailoring various desired physical properties, thus the addition of additional additives provides providing for a second meltable starting material that differs from the first meltable starting material. In summary, melting the second meltable starting material and the at least one reactive additive in the auxiliary melting device to form the second melt is understood to be disclosed.
& i.) ([0079]) teaches that the material from the first twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer and additional additives are added through hopper 122. ([0042] - [0045]) teaches that first twin-screw extruder 100 acting as applicant’s auxiliary melting device comprises additives. Recalling, ([0045]) teaches fillers and fibers include calcium carbonate, talc, silica, clay, magnesium hydroxide, and aluminum trihydroxide. As such, the use of calcium carbonate is understood to be reactive additive consisting of an active nucleating agent in the melt. In summary, an additive-containing second melt containing the at least one reactive additive is obtained in the auxiliary melting device, which is added to the first melt produced in the main melting device is understood to be disclosed.
([0079]) teaches that the material from the first twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. ([0081]) teaches that additional additives may also be added in the second twin screw extruder. As such, the first twin screw extruder 100 may act as applicant’s auxiliary melting device that generates a second melt with a composition, the second melt is then added to the primary melting device / second twin screw extruder 120 that generates a first melt with a different composition (same base polymer with additional additives). In summary, introducing the additive-containing second melt in the main melting device is understood to be disclosed.
([0082]) teaches that the composite is extruded through the die openings in the die plate and cut to size. ([0083]) notes that the extrudate from the second twin screw extruder may be formed into pellets by an underwater pelletizer. Highlighting, that the process and composition utilized in Cernohous is understood to be equivalent to that of the process and composition of applicants. As such, the process and composition is understood to form the same i.e., a foamed extrudate. Accordingly, 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 (CCPA 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 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Furthermore, evidenced provided by Heusser on ([0029]) which states that the discharge element downstream of the mixer insert can comprise a die or a granulator. Instead of the use of a die, in which the extrudate foams, a granulator, in particular an underwater granulator, can be used to granulate the melt containing the blowing agent, whereby the melt foams in a subsequent process step. Accordingly, the use of a die in a tandem twin screw extruder arrangement is understood to provide for an extrudate that foams. In summary, mixing with the first melt to form the foamed extrudate is understood to be disclosed.
Highlighting, due to Cernohous providing for the same method with the same materials. Specifically, generating a first melt in the main melting device from a first meltable starting material, generating a second melt in the auxiliary melting device from a second meltable starting material by either adding at least one reactive additive to the second meltable starting material or using a second meltable starting material containing the at least one reactive additive, wherein the second meltable starting material differs chemically from the first meltable starting material, introducing the additive-containing second melt in the main melting device and mixing with the first melt to form the foamed extrudate. It is understood that the extrudate produced by Cernohous would be the same as applicant’s extrudate, namely, that the foamed extrudate produced would be a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers. Accordingly, 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 (CCPA 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 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. In summary, the method provided by Cernohous is understood to be identical to that of applicant’s method and thus the method of Cernohous is understood to produce an identical foamed extrudate i.e., a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers, thus production of a fine-cell foam with an average cell size of less than 200 micrometers is understood to be disclosed.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the second meltable starting material of the auxiliary melting device is added via a feed device as a powder or as a granulate.
Cernohous teaches the following:
([0061]) teaches that polymer pellets also enter the twin screw extruder 100 through hopper 104. ([0079]) teaches that the material from the twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. As such, the meltable starting mater is understood to be added to both the auxiliary melting device and main melting device as a powder or as a granulate.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one reactive additive is added as a powder, a granulate or as a masterbatch.
Cernohous teaches the following:
([0046]) teaches that the additives may be incorporated into the melt processable composition in the form of powders, pellets, granules or in any other extrudable or compoundable form.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a metering ratio of the second melt and the first melt is less than 1 to 10.
Cernohous teaches the following:
It should be noted a metering ratio of the second melt and the first melt being less than 1 to 10 includes the scenario where no second melt is included, i.e., zero. However, ([0079]) teaches that that the amount of polymer added (to a second twin screw extruder 120) is the amount required to provide the desired wood pulp fiber loading in the composite. ([0081]) teaches that additional additives may also be added in the second twin screw extruder. With ([0045]) teaches that those skilled in the art of melt processing are capable of selecting appropriate amounts and types of additives to match with a specific polymeric matrix in order to achieve desired physical properties of the finished material. As such, due to the second melt comprising additives which are understood to impact desired physical properties of the finished material, it follows that the amount / ratio of second melt implemented is also understood regulate and impact desired physical properties of the finished material. Accordingly, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is added to the first melt in the main melting device or downstream of the main melting device.
Cernohous teaches the following:
([0079]) teaches that the material from the first twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. Other components may be added as well, either to the throat or through a side-stuffer (not shown in figure). As such, the additive second melt produced by the first twin screw extruder 100 (auxiliary melting) device is added to the first melt of the twin screw extruder 120 (main melting device).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a chemical reaction of the at least one reactive additive takes place partially in the auxiliary melting device.
Cernohous teaches the following:
As detailed, it is found on ([0045]) that the reactive additive comprises calcium carbonate for polymers like PLA, poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET), polypropylene and High-density polyethylene (HDPE) which are disclosed on ([0037]). Additionally, on ([0046], [0081]) it was detailed that additives are implemented at both the first extruder 100 and second extruder 120. As such, with ([0079]) teaching that the material from the first twin screw extruder 100 is transferred to a second twin screw extruder 120 and additional polymer is added through hopper 122. Other components may be added as well, either to the throat or through a side-stuffer (not shown in figure). As such, the at least one reactive additive takes place partially in the either the first twin screw extruder 100 is transferred or the second twin screw extruder 120 when acting as the auxiliary melting device. With ([0035]) teaching that melt processing is used to combine the polymer and chemical wood pulp fiber. In melt processing the polymer is heated and melted and the chemical wood pulp fiber is combined with the polymer. Recalling, ([0045]) – [0046]) teaches that additives include fibers, blowing agents, and compatibilizers amongst those being calcium carbonate and talc. Highlighting, that the use of at least one reactive additive takes place in the second twin screw extruder 120 providing for a chemical reaction of the at least one reactive additive taking place partially in the auxiliary melting device.
Regarding claim(s) 9 & 18 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein a temperature of the second melt or the additive-containing second melt in the auxiliary melting device reaches a value of more than 160 degrees Celsius at least in a section of the auxiliary melting device.
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is maintained at a temperature above 160 degrees Celsius for a residence time sufficient to allow substantial decomposition of the at least one reactive additive prior to mixing with the first melt.
Cernohous teaches the following:
& 18a.) ([0118]) teaches various temperatures utilized for processing. Where the melt temperature is listed to be in a range of 380 °F to 445 °F which converts to a 193 °C to 230 °C. Accordingly, a portion of the range 193 °C to 230 °C is found to be more than / above 160 °C. Accordingly, 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 (CCPA 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 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144.
B.) Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of Fujisaki et al. (DE 3624909 A1, hereinafter Fujisaki)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder.
Regarding Claim 2, Cernohous also teaching an embodiment in which a single screw extruder 80 as illustrated in (Figs. 9 & 14) comprising a hopper 82 into in which the fiber composite material from the first twin extruder mixer 100 is placed and found in place of the auxiliary melting device, ([0075]). Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on implementing an auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder. In analogous art for the production of a foamed composition that utilizes an extrusion device, (Abstract), Fujisaki suggest details regarding the auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder, and in this regard, Fujisaki teaches the following:
([0029]) teaches that the extrusion presses for use in the melting and extrusion of thermoplastics according to the invention are single-screw or twin-screw presses, the screws of which are preferably equipped with pins or other mixing devices after the blowing agent has been supplied under pressure. As such, either single-screw or twin-screw presses are understood to be utilized for the tandem screw 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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the tandem extruders to be single screw extruders, as taught by Heusser. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement tandem extruders that are single screw extruders as it provides for homogeneously mixing of thermoplastics with a blowing agent and other desired additives and continuous extrusion of the mixture, ([0001]). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results 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).C.) Claim(s) 2 & 11 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of HeusserRegarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder.
Regarding Claim 2, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on implementing an auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder. In analogous art for the production of a foamed composition that utilizes an extrusion device, (Abstract), Heusser suggest details regarding the auxiliary melting device is configured as a single-screw extruder, and in this regard, Heusser teaches the following:
As show in (Figs. 9 – 12) the extruder depicted to be that of a single screw extruder.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the tandem extruders to be single screw extruders, as taught by Heusser. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement tandem extruders that are single screw extruders as it provides for foams with homogeneous physical properties which results in improved mechanical properties, ([0011]). Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results 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).Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein at least one element from a group consisting of a first mixing device and a first cooling device is arranged downstream of the main melting device.
Regarding Claim 11, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on a first cooling device is arranged downstream of the main melting device. In analogous art as applied above, Heusser suggest details regarding a cooling device is arranged downstream of the main melting device, and in this regard Heusser teaches the following:
([0106]) teaches that then the melt is guided through a static mixer 230, whereby the static mixer has a mixer insert 3, by which the temperature of the melt is homogenized over the entire cross-section, and which is cooled or heated contemporaneously to reach the exact melt temperature. Highlighting, that illustrated in (Figs. 9 – 12) various arrangement for tandem extruder with static mixers are provided with static mixer found after each extruder or after only the secondary extruder / auxiliary melting device.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to include a static mixer after the fixing extruder, as taught by Heusser. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a static mixer provides for the temperature of the melt to be homogenized over the entire cross-section and which is cooled or heated contemporaneously to reach the exact melt temperature, ([0106])Regarding claim(s) 12 – 13 as applied to claim(s) 1 and 13 respectively,
Wherein at least one element from a group consisting of a second mixing device and a second cooling device is arranged between the auxiliary melting device and a feed device to the first melt.
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is mixed or cooled before it is brought into contact with the first melt.
Regarding Claim(s) 12 – 13, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser silent on a second cooling device is arranged downstream of the main melting device. In analogous art as applied above, Heusser suggest details regarding a second cooling device in the main melting apparatus, and in this regard Heusser teaches the following:
& 13a.) (Claim 5) teaches that the melt is directed through a static mixer(220) after leaving the first extruder (201) and before the melt enters the second extruder (211).
The same rejection rationale and analysis that was used previously for claim 11, can be applied here and should be referred to for these claims as well.D.) Claim(s) 3 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of Ackermann (US 20150299411 A1, hereinafter Ackermann)Regarding claim(s) 3 – 4 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein the second meltable starting material of the auxiliary melting device is added via a feed device as a powder or as a granulate.
Wherein the at least one reactive additive is added as a powder, a granulate or as a masterbatch.
Regarding Claim(s) 3 – 4, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on implementing a feed device for secondary extruder and using powder / granules as the starting material in the secondary extruder. In analogous art for the production of a foamable composition that utilizes a tandem extrusion apparatus, Ackermann suggest details regarding and using powder / granules as the starting material in the secondary extruder, and in this regard, Ackermann teaches the following:
& 4a.) ([0044]) teaches that the foamable composition comprises fillers, for example, as nucleation agents, in order to improve the foaming. ([0086]) teaches that a foamable composition 11, in particular in the form of a granulate, is filed into the funnel 12 of a second extruder 13 and it then reaches, through said funnel, the interior of the second extruder.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to include a funnel for feeding granules of a foamable composition into the secondary extruder, as taught by Ackermann. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a funnel for feeding granules of a foamable composition provides a means for softening and to an activation of the originally solid granulate, ([0086]). 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 results 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).
E.) Claim(s) 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of Douglas et al. (US 20040082676 A1, hereinafter Douglas)
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a metering ratio of the second melt and the first melt is less than 1 to 10.
Regarding Claim 5, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on the ratio of the second and first melt. Recalling, Cernohous teaches optimizing the composition for desired properties, ([0046])) and other components, ([0079]) and additional additives, ([0081]) can be added to twin screw extruder 120. In analogous art for the production of a composition that utilizes a first melt and second melt, the second melt comprising an additive, namely a blowing agent, (Abstract), Douglas suggest details regarding the ratio and/or amount of secondary melt with blow agent to be added to the first melt, and in this regard, Douglas teaches the following:
([0048]) teaches that the ratio of polyol components to blowing agents to be med in in-line continuous mixer 16 will depend upon the desired properties of the foam to be produced. Generally, when greater amounts of blowing agents are employed, the foam produced will be lower in density, while, when lesser amounts of blowing agents are employed, the foam produced will be higher in density. ([0048]) teaches that the blowing agent to polyol component mass ratio will preferably range from 1:10 to 1:4, more preferably, from 1:7 to 1:5. As such, the addition, of a melt comprising an additive i.e., a blowing agent to a second melt comprising a polyol component is found to be less than 1 to 10, i.e. from 1:7 to 1:5. Alternatively, ([0068]) Adding, that with respect to the amounts of blowing agent and polyol components employed, the ratio of polyol components in the B-side to isocyanate components within the A-side will depend upon the desired properties of the foam to be produced, ([0069]) teaches that the ratio of the equivalence of NCO groups (provided by the “A-side”) to all polyol components (provided by the “B-side”) is called the index. When the A-side and B-side is equal, then the index is 1.00 or 100, and the mixture is said to be stoichiometrically equal. As the ratio of A-side equivalence to B-side equivalences increases, the index increases. Above an index of about 150 the material is generally known as a A-foam, even though there are still many B-foam linkages. When the index is below about 150, the foam is generally known as a B-foam even though there may be some A-foam linkages. As such, a metering ratio of the second melt and the first melt is less than 1 to 10, i.e., polyurethane foam.
Accordingly, in either case the amount of second melt added to the first melt and thus amount of blowing agent utilized, is understood to tailor and impact various properties such as insulation and density. While simultaneously affecting the type of foam fabricated, namely A-foam or B-foam.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder systems, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By optimizing the amount of lowing agent utilized in the secondary foam and optimizing the amount of secondary foam (with blowing agent) added to the primary foam, as taught by Douglas. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimizing the amount of blowing agent utilized in the secondary foam and optimizing the amount of secondary foam (with blowing agent) added to the primary foam provides a means for tailoring the property of the secondary foam formed and allows for tailoring the type, properties and amount of secondary foam added the to the primary foam, ([0068] — [0069]). Accordingly, the amount of blow agent implement, and secondary foam implemented is understood to have an impact on the type and various properties of the final article produced. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. See, In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
E.) Claim(s) 6, 9, 12 – 14 & 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in view of Michel et al. (US 20190309139 A1, hereinafter Michel)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is added to the first melt in the main melting device or downstream of the main melting device.
Regarding Claim 6, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on introducing the extrudate from the secondary extruder into the stream of the primary extruder downstream. in analogous art for partially foamed extruded plastic products, Michel suggests details regarding utilizing the extruded product as part of the raw forming material feed to the first extrusion device, and in this regard, Michel teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that (B) is the branching point where part of the polymer stream is derived creating a polymer side stream (2) main polymer stream (1); (C) is the mixing unit, preferably an extruder, where comminuted coke particles and foam cell regulator, preferably polyethylene wax are dispersed in the derived polymer side stream (2); With (F) is the extruder where flame retardant agent and synergist are blended, optionally with vinyl aromatic polymer, before being fed into the new polymer stream through (G) lo form the expandable vinyl aromatic polymer melt. As such, the second polymer melt is introduced downstream of the main melting device.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the system to allow for the introduction of the secondary extruder feed into the primary extruder feed, as taught by Michel. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement feeding the second extrudate into the first extrudate stream allows for providing additives to the product formed, ([0022]). 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 results 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).
Regarding claim(s) 9 & 18 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein a temperature of the second melt or the additive-containing second melt in the auxiliary melting device reaches a value of more than 160 degrees Celsius at least in a section of the auxiliary melting device.
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is maintained at a temperature above 160 degrees Celsius for a residence time sufficient to allow substantial decomposition of the at least one reactive additive prior to mixing with the first melt.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 & 18, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on the temperature achieved in the secondary extruder. In analogous art as applied above, Michel suggests details regarding the temperature utilized in the secondary extruder, and in this regard, Michel teaches the following:
& 18a.) ([0108]) that an extruder (C), where’s the comminuted coke and foam cell regulator are fed to and dispersed in the polymer melt, at a temperature comprised between 160 and 250 °C. As such, the first extruder (C) is understood to operate at a temperature of 160 °C or more. Additionally, ([0129]) teaches that an extruder (F), is operated at a temperature comprised between 170 and 210° C, preferably between 180 and 200° C. As such, the second extruder (F) is also understood to operate at a temperature of 160 °C or more.Highlighting, on ([0086], [0096], [0130]) the extruder is understood to provide for a homogeneous process. As such, the second melt is maintained at a temperature above 160 degrees Celsius for a residence time sufficient to allow substantial decomposition of the at least one reactive additive prior to mixing in the secondary extruder.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the system to allow for implementing a temperature in the range of 170 °C to 200 °C for the either the first or second extruder, as taught by Michel. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a temperature in the range of 170 °C to 200 °C for the first or secondary extruder provides a temperature that allows for subsequently joining the two polymer streams, ([0110]). 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 results 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).
Regarding claim(s) 12 – 13 as applied to claim(s) 1 and 13 respectively,
Wherein at least one element from a group consisting of a second mixing device and a second cooling device is arranged between the auxiliary melting device and a feed device to the first melt.
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is mixed or cooled before it is brought into contact with the first melt.
Regarding Claim(s) 12 – 13, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on implementing a mixing device and/or a cooling device between the secondary extruder and the feed to the first melt. In analogous art as applied above, Michel suggests details regarding utilizing a static mixer and its placement in relation to the first and second extruder, and in this regard, Michel teaches the following:
& 13a.) ([0129]) teaches that additives are added to the vinyl aromatic polymer via a separate mixing unit, such as an extruder, and subsequently joining the main polymer stream, for example through a static 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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction Blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the system to allow for implementing a static mixer at a point before the confluence of the first and second extrudate, as taught by Michel. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a mixer prior to the first and second extrudate mixing allows for homogenizing the polymer melt, ([0136]). 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 results 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).
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the active nucleating agent contains at least one substance from a group consisting of a sodium bicarbonate, a citric acid, and a citric acid derivative.
Regarding Claim 14, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on the type of nucleating agents implemented. Recalling, Cernohous teaches implementing various types of polystyrene, ([0037]). In analogous art as applied above, Michel suggests details regarding types of nucleating agents that may be utilized, and in this regard, Michel teaches the following:
([0110]) teaches that other types of cell regulators, called chemical cel regulators, such as citric acid, sodium bicarbonate or other products with decomposition temperatures in the range of the polymer melt temperatures work as bubble initiators in the polymer matrix trough the decomposition of the salt releasing CO2.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the composition to include citric acid, and/or sodium bicarbonate, as taught by Michel. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement citric acid, sodium bicarbonate provides a means for bubble initiators (for foaming), ([0110]). Accordingly, the use of a known material for its intended purposes allows for the recitation of the case law for known material in the art. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S.327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).G.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of Mancosh et al. (US 20080093763 A1, hereinafter Mancosh)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the main melting device contains a degassing opening,
wherein the additive-containing second melt is added downstream of the degassing opening.
Regarding Claim 7, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on the main extruder comprising a degassing opening and its placement. In analogous art for the production of a composition that utilizes a tandem extrusion apparatus, (Abstract), Mancosh suggest details regarding the primary extruder comprising a degassing vent and its placement in regard to the secondary extruder, and in this regard Mancosh teaches the following:
& b.) ([0051]) teaches that barrel segments 128 are selected from open barrels (i.e., with entry ports for feed zones), open barrels with inserts (for degassing, metering, or injection zones), closed barrels, and/or combined barrels for combined feeding (e.g., side feeding of additives) and venting. As such, the extruder 102 / melting device contains a degassing opening / vent. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 3) the open barrel segments 128 / 128a are found downstream and prior to the extruder’s entry port 132b on 128b for feeding (e.g., side feeding of additives) and venting. Similarly, the open barrel segments 128 / 128b are found upstream and after to the extruder’s entry port 132a on 128a for feeding (e.g., side feeding of additives) and venting. As such, providing for a degassing insert prior to the secondary extruder’s entry port. Rephrased, the additive-containing second melt is added downstream of the degassing opening.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to include a barrel section that comprises a degassing insert prior to the secondary extruder’s entry port, as taught by Mancosh. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide a degassing section provides a means for venting gas and/or vapor that may come from the extrudate, ([0051]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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).
H.) Claim(s) 9 & 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of DiBiasi et al. (US 4360486 A hereinafter DiBiasi)Regarding claim(s) 9 & 18 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein a temperature of the second melt or the additive-containing second melt in the auxiliary melting device reaches a value of more than 160 degrees Celsius at least in a section of the auxiliary melting device.
Wherein the additive-containing second melt is maintained at a temperature above 160 degrees Celsius for a residence time sufficient to allow substantial decomposition of the at least one reactive additive prior to mixing with the first melt.
Regarding Claim(s) 9 & 18, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on the temperature achieved in the secondary extruder. In analogous art for the production of a composition that utilizes a tandem extrusion apparatus, DiBiasi suggest details regarding the temperature utilized for the secondary extruder comprising, and in this regard DiBiasi teaches the following:
& 18a.) (Col. 2, lines 17-29) teaches that the process in general involves introducing the polystyrene in pellet form in admixture with a nucleating agent and heating the same to a relatively high temperature, e.g., 400 – 550 °F, in an extruder. A blowing agent, for example, a low molecular weight material, such as, pentane or a Freon, i.e. a chloro-fluorocarbon, is pumped into the extruder and thoroughly mixed with the molten polystyrene. Thereafter, the molten polystyrene, with the blowing agent homogeneously present is transported into a cooler second stage of the extruder or to a second extruder where the temperature is reduced to, for example 230 – 315 °F. As such, 400 – 550 °F which is equivalent 204 °C – 260 °C, is found to be higher / more than 160 °C. Highlighting, that the extruder is understood to provide for a homogeneous process mass. As such, the second melt is maintained at a temperature above 160 degrees Celsius for a residence time sufficient to allow substantial decomposition of the at least one reactive additive prior to mixing in the secondary extruder.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to have a secondary extruder temperature in the range of 204 °C – 260 °C, as taught by DiBiasi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a secondary extruder temperature in the range of 204 °C – 260 °C, as it provides a temperature that allows for extruding the material into a second extruder, (Col. 2, lines 17 – 29). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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).
I.) Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in view of Extrusion Wiki (Extrusion of Thermoplastic Foams, 2018, hereinafter EWiki)
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a temperature of the second melt or the additive-containing second melt is higher than the temperature of the first melt before the first melt and the additive-containing second melt are mixed.
Regarding Claim 10, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on optimizing the temperature in the second extruder. In analogous art for the production of a foamed composition that utilizes an extrusion device, (Abstract), EWiki suggest details regarding the temperature utilized for an extruder utilized for foamed composition that includes a blowing agent, and in this regard EWiki teaches the following:
(¶3) teaches that the most widely used techniques for making foamed products employs a chemical blowing agent (CBA). The CBA decomposes at a specific temperature releasing nitrogen gas which inflates the cells. (¶4) teaches that a conventional extruder can be used in this process, but care must be taken to avoid premature decomposition of the CBA and subsequent loss of the nitrogen through the feed throat. (¶5) teaches that the foam density is affected by melt temperature through its effects on melt viscosity and gas pressure and by the concentration of blowing agent which is usually about 1%. If the melt temperature gets out of control the foam point will move inside the die resulting in destruction of the cellular structure.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process by having the (secondary) extruder comprising a blowing agent utilize an optimized temperature, as taught EWiki. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized temperature for the (secondary) extruder comprising a blowing agent provides a means for influence the melt viscosity and gas pressure and impacting the foam point of the composition during molding, (¶5). Accordingly, the temperature implemented for the (secondary) extruder comprising a blowing agent is understood to impact various aspects of the processing including melt viscosity and gas pressure and impacting the foam point of the composition during molding. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) & In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977 Furthermore, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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).
J.) Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and in further view of Wanjala et al. (Influence of Feed Rate, Moisture and Mixture..., 2020, hereinafter Wanjala)
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a metered amount of the at least one reactive additive is controlled by an angular velocity of a rotatable conveying device arranged in the auxiliary melting device.
Regarding Claim 15, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on a metered amount of the reactive additive being controlled by an angular velocity of a rotatable conveying device. In analogous art for a discussion on the impact and optimization of various parameters utilized in a single screw extruder, (Abstract), Wanjala suggest details regarding optimizing the angular velocity and how it impacts the feed rate of the extruder, and in this regard Wanjala teaches the following:
(Mass Transfer Calculations) teaches that Specific Mechanical Energy (SME) was calculated using the equation below:
S
M
E
=
T
x
ω
M
f
;
(
W
·
h
/
k
g
)
Where: T = Torque of the extruder (N-M); ω = Angular velocity (radians/s) and Mf = Extruder feed rate (Kg/h). With rearrangement yields,
ω
=
S
M
E
x
M
f
T
As such, the angular velocity (ω) implemented is understood to have an impact on the amount of material utilized i.e., the feed rate (Mf), fand thus the amount of material processed (extruded) by the extruded.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to have an optimized angular velocity, as taught by Wanjala. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized angular velocity allows for controlling the amount of material utilized (feed rate), and thus processed (extruded) by the extruded, ( Mass Transfer Calculations). Accordingly, the angular velocity is understood to have an impact on the amount of material utilized (feed rate), and thus processed (extruded) by the extruded. As such, the case law for result effective variables2 may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. /n re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) & In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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).
K.) Claim(s) 16 & 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser in view of Wanjala and in further view of Douglas
Regarding claim(s) 16 & 17 as applied to claim 1 respectively,
Wherein an angular velocity of a rotatable conveying device of the auxiliary melting device is regulated by a throughput- dependent set variable of the main melting device.
Wherein a quantity of the additive-containing second melt is metered in view of an angular velocity of a rotatable conveying device in the auxiliary melting device, the angular velocity being regulated by a throughput-dependent manipulated variable of the main melting device.
Regarding Claim(s) 16 & 17, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser is silent on a metered amount of the reactive additive being controlled by an angular velocity of a rotatable conveying device. In analogous art for a discussion on the impact and optimization of various parameters utilized in a single screw extruder, (Abstract), Wanjala suggest details regarding optimizing the angular velocity and how it impacts the feed rate of the extruder, and in this regard Wanjala teaches the following:
& 17a.) (Mass Transfer Calculations) teaches that Specific Mechanical Energy (SME) was calculated using the equation below:
S
M
E
=
T
x
ω
M
f
;
(
W
·
h
/
k
g
)
Where: T = Torque of the extruder (N-M); ω = Angular velocity (radians/s) and Mf = Extruder feed rate (Kg/h). With rearrangement yields,
ω
=
S
M
E
x
M
f
T
As such, the angular velocity (ω) implemented is understood to have an impact on the amount of material utilized i.e., the feed rate (Mf), fand thus the amount of material processed (extruded) by the extruded.
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser. By modifying the process to have an optimized angular velocity, as taught by Wanjala. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized angular velocity allows for controlling the amount of material utilized (feed rate), and thus processed (extruded) by the extruded, ( Mass Transfer Calculations). Accordingly, the angular velocity is understood to have an impact on the amount of material utilized (feed rate), and thus processed (extruded) by the extruded. As such, the case law for result effective variables2 may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. /n re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) & In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success 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).
Regarding Claim(s) 16 & 17, Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and as modified Wanjala is silent on the impact the ratio of the second and first melt. In analogous art for the production of a composition that utilizes a first melt and second melt, the second melt comprising a blow agent, Douglas suggest details regarding the ratio and/or amount of secondary melt with blow agent to be added to the first melt, and in this regard, Douglas teaches the following:
& 17a.) ([0048]) teaches that the ratio of polyol components to blowing agents to be mixed in in-line continuous mixer 16 will depend upon the desired properties of the foam to be produced. Generally, when greater amounts of blowing agents are employed, the foam produced will be lower in density, while, when lesser amounts of blowing agents are employed, the foam produced will be higher in density. ([0068]) Adding, that with respect to the amounts of blowing agent and polyol components employed, the ratio of polyol components in the B-side to isocyanate components within the A-side will depend upon the desired properties of the foam to be produced. ([0069]) teaches that the ratio of the equivalence of NCO groups (provided by the “A-side”) to ail polyol components (provided by the “B-side”) is called the index. When the A-side and B-side is equal, then the index is 1.00 or 100, and the mixture is said to be stoichiometrically equal. As the ratio of A-side equivalence to B-side equivalence increases, the index increases. Above an index of about 150 the material is generally known as a A-foam, even though there are still many B-foam linkages. When the index is below about 150, the foam is generally known as a B-foam even though there may be some A-foam
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 manufacturing extruded article that utilizes a primary and secondary extruder system, that allows for the introduction blowing agents, of Cernohous as evidenced by Helland and Heusser and as modified Wanjala. By further modifying and optimizing the amount of blowing agent utilized in the secondary foam and optimizing the amount of secondary foam (with blowing agent) added to the primary foam, as taught by Douglas. Highlighting, one would be motivated to optimize the amount of blowing agent utilized in the secondary foam and optimizing the amount of secondary foam (with blowing agent) added to the primary foam provides a means for tailoring the property of the secondary foam formed and allows for tailoring the type, properties and amount of secondary foam added the to the primary foam, ([0068] —[0069]). Accordingly, the amount of blow agent implement, and secondary foam implemented is understood to have an impact on the type and various properties of the final article produced. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, itis well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. See, In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Vos et al. (EP 1308475 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The invention relates to continuously extruded physically foamed fine cellular polyethylene foam having a structure in which more than 95 % of the cells have a cell diameter smaller than 150 micrometer.
Meller et al. (EP 2671911 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) This invention describes a foamed material wherein the foam is characterized by elongated cells, which have an aspect ratio larger than 1.5, and by a density according to ISO 845 of lower than 150 kg/m3, preferably lower than 80 kg/m3 and a process of manufacturing said material with very good thermal insulation properties.
Severini et al. (EP 3775008 B1) – teaches in the (Abstract) The present invention concerns a method to manufacture a foam material obtained by the direct use of recycled PET in an extruder. Here and below by recycled PET we mean PET in the form of flakes e.g. from bottles.
Thomas W. Winstead (US 4436679 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method and apparatus for entraining gas as a blowing agent in a thermoplastic melt to provide a foamed thermoplastic extrudate wherein an annular sheet-like flow of gas under pressure is impinged on a tubular configuration of melt to entrain the gas in the melt is disclosed. Also disclosed is an improved method and apparatus for controlling the pressure in the thermoplastic melt.
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