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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims filed 6-24-25 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 1, 3-9, 11-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8-9 are currently amended. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 2 and 10 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields (US 4,125,333).
Regarding claim 1, Fields discloses an extrusion screw 4 for processing synthetic detergents, soaps, and combinations thereof, comprising:
A feed section;
A metering section;
A compression section located between the feed section and the metering section, said compression section having a proximal channel depth (h-2--) adjacent to the feed section, and a distal channel depth (h-1) adjacent to the metering section, and wherein the compression section has a compression ratio (h2/h1) from 1 to 2.5 or more, which overlaps with the claimed range (see abstract, fig. 1-2, col. 2, line 62-68, col. 3, line 56-62, col. 5, line 23-37, claim 1).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Fields teaches wherein the compression section has a compression ration from 1 to 2.5 or more, which overlaps with the claimed range (see col. 2, line 62-68, col. 3, line 56-62).
Regarding claim 9, Fields discloses an apparatus for processing synthetic detergents, soaps, and combinations thereof, and comprising:
A barrel 1 having a throat 7 configured to receive a formulation selected from soap, synthetic detergent, and combinations thereof, and an exit 8 configured to deliver extruded soap, synthetic detergent, and combinations thereof, and
An extrusion screw 4 located inside the barrel, and having
A feed section adjacent to the throat of the barrel;
A metering section having a distal end adjacent to the exit of the barrel;
A compression section located between the feed section, and the metering section, said compression section having a proximal channel depth (h-2--) adjacent to the feed section, and a distal channel depth (h-1) adjacent to the metering section, and
wherein the compression section has a compression ratio (h2/h1) from 1 to 2.5 or more, which overlaps with the claimed range (see abstract, fig. 1-2, col. 2, line 62-68, col. 3, line 56-62, col. 5, line 23-37, claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Fields discloses a motor 6 connected to a proximal end of the extrusion screw (see fig. 1, col. 5, line 23-37).
Regarding claim 14, Fields discloses a transmission device 5 connected between the motor and the extrusion screw (see fig. 1 and col. 5, line 23-37).
Regarding claim 15, Fields discloses a shaping die located in a distal end of the barrel (col. 5, line 23-37).
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas (US 9,738,047).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Fields does not teach wherein the metering section has a variable pitch, and a variable helix angle. However, Thomas teaches that the lateral compression can be created by changing the number of flight and/or the pitch of the flights of the screw (see col. 2, line 11-20, col. 4, line 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fields with the teaching of Thomas in order to create lateral compression. Thomas further teaches wherein the metering section has a variable helix angle (see fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Fields does not teach wherein the feed section, and the compression section have a pitch to diameter ratio (p/D) between 0.7 and 1.0. However, Thomas teaches that the lateral compression can be created by changing the number of fight and/or the pitch of the flight of the screw (see col. 2, line 11-20, col.4, line 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pitch to diameter ratio in the extrusion screw of Fields in order to optimize the lateral compression.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer de Groot et al. (US 6,458,300).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Fields does not teach wherein the extrusion screw has a length to diameter ratio (L/D) between 4.0 and 6. However, Meyer de Groot et al. teaches a single screw extruder has a length to diameter ratio of 8:1 or less (claim 1, 8, abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the L/D ratio of the extrusion screw in order to optimize the mixing process depending on the type of material used.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fields as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nitta et al. (English translation of JP07133500).
Regarding claim 5, Fields does not teach wherein the feed section has a length to diameter ratio (Lf-/D) between 0.75 and 1.6. However, Nitta et al. teaches the screw 2 has a feed section L1 which has a length to diameter ratio of L1/D3 (see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the L/D of the feed section since Nitta et al. teaches a low length to diameter ratio of the feed section for processing highly viscous matter such as soap (see abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Fields does not teach wherein the compression section has a length to diameter ratio between 0.75 and 1.6. However, Nitta et al. teaches the screw 2 has a compression section L2 which has a low length to diameter ratio (see fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the L/D of the compression section since Nitta et al. teaches a low length to diameter ratio of the compression section for processing highly viscous matter such as soap (see abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Fields does not teach wherein the variable pitch of the metering section has a decreasing rate of pitch to diameter ratio (p/D) between 0.5 and 1.0 and/or has a decreasing flight width to diameter ratio (e/D) between 0.05 and 0.03. However, Nitta et al. teaches wherein the pitch of the metering section has a decreasing rate of pitch to diameter ratio (p/D) between 0.275 and 0.3 (as calculated from para 23 and fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pitch to diameter ratio of the metering section in order to optimize the amount of compression and mixing in the metering section.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-24-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claimed range of compression ratio produces unexpected results over the prior art range. However, the prior art range which overlaps with the claimed range is obvious over the claimed range since applicant’s argument fails to show criticality of the claimed range by showing of unexpected results relative to the prior art range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742