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 Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) follow below.
Applicant is again advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant's arguments filed February 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that neither Gowscha et al. nor Hoshi discloses or suggests the geometry of amended claim 1 and Gowscha et al. is entirely silent as to a discrete transition point, an axial length smaller than a screw pitch, or the formation of an annular expansion nozzle via a sudden core-diameter step and Hoshi likewise fails to disclose the claimed structure and Hoshi (paraphrasing) teaches a gradual reduction (in section 11d) in which the diameter is gradually reduced to lower pressure prior to degassing (see paragraph [0016] of Hoshi) and the gradual nature of this reduction is confirmed by Hoshi's description and figures, which show a continuous taper rather than a discrete step change. At no point does Hoshi disclose a shaft core diameter reduction occurring over an axial length smaller than a screw pitch, nor does Hoshi disclose maintaining both a constant outer screw flight diameter and a constant housing bore diameter across such a reduction (Remarks, pages 7-8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Examiner contends that Hoshi teaches all of the above features. First, it is noted that while Applicant’s disclosure uses the term “diameter step” the term “discrete step change” is not explicitly stated in Applicant’s specification and this term is interpreted to be the reduction in the core diameter at transition point 23.4 (See for example: Fig. 5) which is shown to be tapered at the transition point and is a “step” in that it steps down from a constant diameter to another smaller constant diameter and does not continuously taper through the middle region or degassing zone. This transition point is substantially the same as the transition point taught by Hoshi as indicated below:
PNG
media_image1.png
617
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the transition point length of Hoshi is smaller than the axial pitch length. If anything, the transition point of the “nozzle” of Hoshi appears to be more abrupt than Applicant’s transition point 23.4. The taper shown by Hoshi is not continuous as shown above, because the diameter is constant on both sides of the transition point and is therefore a step down rather than a continual tapering as Applicant seems to be arguing. The Examiner contends that Hoshi discloses a shaft core diameter reduction occurring over an axial length smaller than a screw pitch as clearly indicated in the annotation above. Hoshi also discloses maintaining both a constant outer screw flight diameter and a constant housing bore diameter across the reduction as indicated below (note that the lines tracing the “bore” and “flight” are parallel across not only the transition point, but also the degassing region):
PNG
media_image2.png
617
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the location of the step is near or shortly before or after the start of the degassing zone to achieve the desired effect of an abrupt change in pressure (Remarks, page 8). It is noted that Applicant’s transition point is centrally located in the degassing zone 23 (See Fig. 5) between an initial area 23.1 and an end area 23.2 (See Fig. 5 and below) and Hoshi teaches the same as shown above.
PNG
media_image3.png
634
903
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the claim now defines the abruptness structurally, by reference to a discrete step change occurring over an axial length smaller than a screw pitch, with constant outer flight and housing bore diameters. Under this definition, Hoshi's tapered decompression section cannot reasonably be read onto the claim. Any attempt to do so would require reconstructing Hoshi's gradual taper into a stepwise reduction over less than one pitch length, that is features that are not disclosed in Hoshi and are derived only from Applicant's specification, which constitutes impermissible hindsight (Remarks, page 9). The Examiner notes that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Again, as shown and explained above, Hoshi teaches a discrete step change occurring over an axial length smaller than a screw pitch (as shown above) with constant outer flight and housing bore diameters and the argument is not persuasive.
Otherwise, the Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (in view of Yusa et al., US 20180339439) which follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the transition point is situated adjacent to the start of the degassing zone” and “the start of the degassing zone” in lines 29-30 has insufficient antecedent basis and it is further unclear what “the start of the degassing zone” is in reference to as the specification does not recite a “start of the degassing zone”. As best understood, the “start of the degassing zone” is in reference to an initial region 23.1 of degassing zone 23 (see Fig 5). This could be amended as “the transition point is situated adjacent toan initial region of the diameter middle region”. It is noted that if amended as such, claim 4 will need to be amended by changing “an initial region” in line 2 to “the [[an]] initial region”.
Claims 2-12 are likewise rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowscha et al. (Applicant provided translation of DE 2237190A1) in view of Hoshi (Applicant provided translation of JP 2008132703A) and with or without Yusa et al. (US 20180339439).
Regarding claim 1, Gowscha et al. discloses an extruder as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
429
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Insomuch as Gowscha et al. does not explicitly disclose the extruder is for viscosity-increasing processing of meltable polymers, it is noted that "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation" (See MPEP 2111.02). Nonetheless, the device of Gowscha et al. would be fully capable of use in viscosity-increasing processing of meltable polymers.
Gowscha et al. discloses the extruder comprises: an extruder screw with at least one helical extruder screw flight (Fig. 1, annotated above), the extruder screw being subdivided with respect to its outer diameter into a diameter start region, a diameter middle region and a diameter end region (Fig. 1, annotated above), the diameter middle region having a larger outer diameter than the diameter start or end regions (Fig. 1); a housing with an inner housing bore, in which the extruder screw is rotatably arranged (Fig. 1, annotated above); a transition cone formed between the diameter start region and the diameter middle region and/or between the diameter middle region and the diameter end region (at least between the diameter middle region and the diameter end region, Fig. 1, shown above); and at least one degassing zone (vacuum zone 3) formed in the diameter middle region, which has a housing recess from which at least one suction opening extends towards an outer side of the housing.
Insomuch as Gowscha et al. does not disclose an annular expansion nozzle; Hoshi teaches an extruder for meltable polymers (para. [0003]) with a degassing zone (having a vent port 52, Fig. 3, shown below) having a flow channel formed between an extruder screw shaft core and an inner wall of the housing recess which is designed as an annular expansion nozzle (decompression section 10d), the outer diameter of the at least one extruder screw flight being constant (shown below) and a radial height of the flow channel widening (widens at “nozzle” 11d after compression section 11c), wherein at the annular expansion nozzle, an extruder screw shaft core diameter is abruptly reduced at a transition point (as is clearly shown annotated below, the core diameter is abruptly reduced at a transition point and the transition point of Hoshi shown below has substantially the same configuration as the one shown in the instant specification: transition point 23.4 as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3); and wherein the at least one suction opening (vent port 52) is arranged in the end section at the end of the degassing zone (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
616
972
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the extruder screw is formed in the diameter middle region such that a flow channel formed between an extruder screw shaft core and an inner wall of the housing recess is designed as an annular expansion nozzle, the outer diameter of the at least one extruder screw flight being constant and a radial height of the flow channel widening, wherein at the annular expansion nozzle, an extruder screw shaft core diameter is abruptly reduced at a transition point, and wherein the at least one suction opening is arranged in the end section at the end of the degassing zone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the diameter middle region of Gowscha et al. to include the nozzle and channel height widening taught by Hoshi in order to ensure adequate kneading of the flow of material prior to degassing through the nozzle (Hoshi, para. [0027]).
Gowscha et al. does not disclose a transition point (centrally located between an initial region and end region) in the diameter middle region.
However, Hoshi further teaches that the transition point is defined by a discrete step change in the extruder screw shaft core diameter occurring over an axial length that is smaller than an axial pitch of the at least one extruder screw flight, while the outer diameter of the at least one extruder screw flight and an inner diameter of the housing bore remain constant across the transition point, and wherein the transition point is situated adjacent to the start of the degassing zone as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
660
958
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the transition point is defined by a discrete step change in the extruder screw shaft core diameter occurring over an axial length that is smaller than an axial pitch of the at least one extruder screw flight, while the outer diameter of the at least one extruder screw flight and an inner diameter of the housing bore remain constant across the transition point, and wherein the transition point is situated adjacent to the start of the degassing zone.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the diameter middle region of Gowscha et al. to include the nozzle with a transition point in order to achieve an expanded region for degassing.
Assuming, arguendo, that Hoshi does not teach a discrete step change smaller than the length of the axial pitch of the screw flight; Yusa et al. teaches a step change into a reduced pressure zone (zone 23, para. [0100]) where the step change may be gradual (Fig. 5C) or immediate (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein a discrete step-change (Yusa et al., immediate, Fig. 6) smaller than the length of the axial pitch of the screw flight is utilized at the transition point.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an immediate or very abrupt step change in order to achieve the predictable result of increasing the flow rate into the reduced core diameter area of the screw (Yusa et al., pars. [0073]-[0074]) such as to achieve more rapid degassing.
Regarding claim 3, it is deemed that Gowscha et al. reasonably discloses wherein the at least one helical extruder screw flight has an outer diameter in the diameter middle region which corresponds to at least 1.5 times the outer diameter in the diameter start region (Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
320
567
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Assuming, arguendo, that the diameter ratio is not disclosed in Gowscha et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the diameter ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gowscha et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Regarding claim 4, in the combined teachings of the above cited references for claim 1, the diameter middle region (Hoshi, Fig. 1) has an initial region and an end region, and wherein a radial flight depth of flights formed between adjacent portions of the at least one helical extruder screw flight is smaller in the initial region than in the end region (Hoshi, Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
427
288
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Gowscha et al. does not disclose an end region and initial region.
However, Hoshi who is relied upon to teach an initial region and end region (as shown above for claim 4) further teaches wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one helical extruder screw flights in the end region of the diameter middle region is at least three times the flight depth of the initial region (initial region 11c depth is 1.7 mm and the end region 11e depth is 6 mm, para. [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one helical extruder screw flights in the end region of the diameter middle region is at least three times the flight depth of the initial region.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to size the depths such that the volume is increased in the end region in order to facilitate degassing in the end region (Hoshi, through port 52 corresponding to Gowscha et al. vacuum zone 3).
Regarding claim 6, Gowscha et al. does not disclose an initial region.
However, Hoshi who is relied upon to teach an initial region (as shown above for claim 4) further teaches the at least one helical extruder screw flight in the initial region of the degassing zone is 1% to 5% of the outer diameter (Hoshi, 4%: the example using the screw with a larger 100 mm diameter. para. [0059], wherein the initial region 11c flight depth is 4.0 mm, para. [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one helical extruder screw flight in the initial region formed in the diameter middle region is 1% to 5% of the outer diameter.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known dimensions in order to achieve the predictable result of facilitating kneading and degassing (Hoshi, para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Gowscha et al. does not disclose an end region.
However, Hoshi who is relied upon to teach an initial region and end region (as shown above for claim 4) further teaches wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one helical extruder screw flight in the end region is at least 10% of the outer diameter in the degassing zone formed in the diameter middle region (Hoshi, using the example with a diameter of 20 mm, para. [0032], the flight in the end region 11e of the degassing zone is 6.0 mm, para. [0033], which exceeds 10%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one extruder screw flight in the end region is at least 10% of the outer diameter in the degassing zone formed in the diameter middle region.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known dimensions in order to achieve the predictable result of facilitating kneading and degassing (Hoshi, para. [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, it is deemed that Gowscha et al. reasonably discloses wherein the outer diameter of the diameter middle region is at least equal to 1.5 times the outer diameter of the diameter start region (Fig. 1, shown above for claim 3).
Assuming, arguendo, that the diameter ratio is not disclosed in Gowscha et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With respect to the diameter ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gowscha et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowscha et al. (Applicant provided translation of DE 2237190A1) in view of Hoshi (Applicant provided translation of JP 2008132703A) and with or without Yusa et al. (US 20180339439) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of JP ‘330 (Applicant provided JP S58171330U) and Houk (US 20140377396).
Regarding claim 2, Gowscha et al. discloses wherein the extruder screw is further functionally divided into at least a metering zone (zone where material added through opening 2 is mixed, Fig. 1, annotated below) and a discharge zone (Fig. 1, annotated below) wherein a compressor for compressing and/or homogenizing a polymer melt is formed on the extruder screw in the metering zone (the screw is conical shaped in the metering zone for compressing, Fig. 1, and the zone features a gap 8 through which material is pressed, para. [0010]), wherein the metering zone, viewed in a direction of flow, extends from the diameter start region over a surface (section 7) into the diameter middle region, and wherein the discharge zone is completely formed in the diameter end region (Fig. 1, as shown below):
PNG
media_image9.png
530
878
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Insomuch as Gowscha et al. does not disclose the metering zone, viewed in a direction of flow, extends from the diameter start region over the transition cone (rather than over surface 7 of Gowscha et al., which does appear cone-like), JP ‘330 teaches an extruder having a metering zone which extends from the diameter start region over a transition cone. Likewise, Houk teaches an extruder (abstract) having devolatilization zone (vent block, Fig. 3) which may be positioned at various locations in an extruder, including a metering zone (para. [0008]) and where the metering zone includes a transition cone (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image10.png
413
970
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the metering zone, viewed in a direction of flow, extends from the diameter start region over the transition cone into the diameter middle region.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a transition cone as a known feature to assist in feeding material to a devolatilization region (JP ‘330, shown above) or as a structure for smooth transitioning to different inner diameters of an extruder screw (Houk, “tapered so as to reduce the cross-sectional size“, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Gowscha et al. does not disclose a conical transition zone in which the extruder screw flight is interrupted.
However, JP ‘330 teaches an extruder having a metering zone, degassing region (Fig. 1, vent 3) and a conical transition zone comprising a transition cone (transition cone shown above for claim 2) from the metering zone to an initial region of the diameter middle region wherein the screw flight is interrupted in the conical transition zone (Fig. 1) and likewise Houk teaches an extruder (abstract) having a degassing region (vent block, Fig. 3) which may be positioned at various locations in an extruder, including a metering zone (para. [0008]) and where the metering zone includes a transition cone (Fig. 3) at the transition to an initial region (of the diameter middle region) as shown above for claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the extruder screw at a transition from the metering zone to an initial region of the diameter middle region and/or at a transition from the end section to the discharge zone respectively has a conical transition zone comprising one of the transition cones in which the at least one helical extruder screw flight is interrupted.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a conical transition zone as a known feature for assisting in feeding material to a degassing/middle diameter region (JP ‘330, shown above for claim 2) or as a smooth structure for transitioning to different inner diameters of an extruder screw (Houk, “tapered so as to reduce the cross-sectional size“, para. [0029]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowscha et al. (Applicant provided translation of DE 2237190A1) in view of Hoshi (Applicant provided translation of JP 2008132703A) and with or without Yusa et al. (US 20180339439) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Derezinski (US 20020136084) and Gou et al. (US 20200047387).
Regarding claim 8, Gowscha et al. is silent as to flight depth.
However, Hoshi who is relied upon to teach an expansion nozzle as discussed for claim 1 above, further discloses the diameter may be 100 mm (para. [0064]) and Gou et al. teaches an extrusion screw for processing polymers (abstract) and further teaches the metering section may be 6-8% of the internal barrel diameter (abstract) which corresponds to the outer diameter of the screw and Derezinski teaches an extruder for processing polymers (para. [0001]) and further teaches that the depth of an extraction section (section 34, corresponding to the end region) may be four times the depth of the metering section (para. [0033]) and using these teachings the depth of the extruder screw flight in the end region would be greater than 20 mm using a screw with a diameter of 100 mm (Hoshi, para. [0064]) such as 6% of 100 mm which is 6 mm, times four, which is 24 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the radial flight depth of the at least one helical extruder screw flight in the end region is at least 20 mm.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize known dimensions for an end region (in a degassing zone/middle region) of an extruder screw to achieve the predictable result of facilitating expansion/degassing and/or would have found it obvious to scale the size of the device and therefore also the relative flight depth in various sections in order to achieve the desired flow rate of material from the extruder. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) or In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowscha et al. (Applicant provided translation of DE 2237190A1) in view of Hoshi (Applicant provided translation of JP 2008132703A) and with or without Yusa et al. (US 20180339439) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Koenders (US 20080085978) and Banders et al. (US 20110306690).
Regarding claim 10, it is deemed that Gowscha et al. reasonably discloses the degassing zone length is at least 2.0 times of the outer diameter of the diameter middle region.
Assuming, arguendo, that the degassing zone length is not disclosed in Gowscha et al., the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the degassing zone length, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have provided the apparatus of Gowscha et al. with the dimensions recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Further, Koenders teaches an extruder for processing polymers (abstract) and further teaches a degassing zone length of 6-8 diameters (para. [0038]) and Banders et al. also teaches an extruder for processing polymers (para. [0001]) and further teaches a degassing zone length of 20-33 diameters (para. [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein the length of the degassing zone is at least 2.0 times the outer diameter of the diameter middle region (and therefore also the degassing zone).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize known dimensions for the degassing zone.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gowscha et al. (Applicant provided translation of DE 2237190A1) in view of Hoshi (Applicant provided translation of JP 2008132703A) and with or without Yusa et al. (US 20180339439) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kishihiro (US 4300840) and Aniunoh (previously attached non-patent literature titled “Extruder Screw Design and Purpose”).
Regarding claim 12, insomuch as Gowscha et al. does not disclose wherein at least in the degassing zone at least two intertwined extruder screw flights with the same pitch are formed on the extruder screw; Kishihiro teaches an extruder with degassing zone (having gas outlet 13) and Kishihiro teaches that the extruder screw has at least two intertwined extruder screw flights with the same pitch formed on the screw including in the degassing zone (Fig. 5) as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
610
832
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Further, Aniunoh teaches that flighting is used to produce increased retention time such as to ensure proper heating (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Gowscha et al. wherein at least in the degassing zone at least two intertwined extruder screw flights with the same pitch are formed on the extruder screw.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize at least two intertwined flights in order to produce the expected result of increasing retention time in order to ensure adequate heat transfer (Aniunoh, page 2, heating/cooling).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774