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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (8 – 13 – 2023) has been entered. Election/Restrictions
Submitted claim(s) 25 & 26 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1 – 6, 8 & 12 – 13, drawn to a first die plate.
Group II, claim(s) 25, drawn to a second die plate.
Group III, claim(s) 26, drawn to a third die plate.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
A die plate comprising:
a die plate body comprising;
melt channels; and
a hollow chamber; and
an outlet surface distributed in a ring-shaped formation;
wherein: the die plate has melt channels which pass through the die plate body and feed onto the outlet surface;
the die plate body is configured as an integral one-piece materially homogeneous layered structural body formed of a metallic material whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer
These technical features are not a special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Robertson et al. (US 20150132424 A1, hereinafter Robertson)
& c.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
, d.) & e.) ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) the extrusion channels 235 are shown to be arranged within the die which act as applicant’s melt channels, (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) also including that the extrusion orifices 234 are found in an annular / ring-shaped formation around the plate.
([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. ([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
(Groups I & III) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features of…
A die plate comprising:
a die plate body comprising;
melt channels; and
a hollow chamber; and
an outlet surface distributed in a ring-shaped formation;
wherein: the die plate has melt channels which pass through the die plate body and feed onto the outlet surface;
the die plate body is configured as an integral one-piece materially homogeneous layered structural body formed of a metallic material whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer and
the hollow chamber: has an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate; and
extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate.
These technical features are not a special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Robertson et al. (US 20150132424 A1, hereinafter Robertson)
& c.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
, d.) & e.) ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) the extrusion channels 235 are shown to be arranged within the die which act as applicant’s melt channels, (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) also including that the extrusion orifices 234 are found in an annular / ring-shaped formation around the plate.
([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6), showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
& h.) As illustrated in (Figs. 6 – 7) the hollow chamber comprises an axial height and is found to extends over a portion of the cross-sectional area of the die plate. As such, any discrepancies regarding the size of the hollow chamber comprising an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate and is found to extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate, the size case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
(Groups II & III) lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical features of…
A die plate comprising:
a die plate body comprising a hollow chamber; and
an outlet surface distributed in a ring-shaped formation;
wherein: the die plate has melt channels which pass through the die plate body and feed onto the outlet surface;
the melt channels are distributed in an annular melt channel pattern;
the hollow chamber is configured for:
controlling the temperature of the die plate; and/or
thermally insulating the melt channels at least partially within the annular melt channel pattern; and
the die plate body is configured as an integral one-piece layered structural body whose material layers are:
individually consolidated layer by layer; and
formed of a single material.
These technical features are not a special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Robertson et al. (US 20150132424 A1, hereinafter Robertson)
, e.) & f.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
, c.), d.) ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) the extrusion channels 235 are shown to be arranged within the die which act as applicant’s melt channels, (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) also including that the extrusion orifices 234 are found in an annular / ring-shaped formation around the plate.
It should be noted that only a single limitation amongst (e) and (f) is required.
& h.) ([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Figs. 6 – 7) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. As such, the die plating is understood to comprise a materially homogeneous metallic die plate. ([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die plate 210 can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die plate can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 25 – 26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim(s) 25 & 26 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (8 – 13 – 2023) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 25 not being addressed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding newly included claim 26.
Applicant argues that according to the invention, the die plate body, including its at least one temperature control and/or insulating hollow chamber and the body sections surrounding the melt channels, is formed by additive material application as an integral single-piece layered body whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer
Robertson discloses a die plate body that is not an integral one-piece body, but an assembled multi-pieces structure. The elements to which the Examiner is referring to as “layers” were manufactured entirely separate from each other and are formed of separate materials (not of a single material as recited in Claims 1
Robertson does not teach that the layered die plate body may be formed from a metallic material.
Robertson does not teach material layers can be successively liquefied and/or solidified layer by layer by means of an energy beam. For example, one or more materials can be applied in layers in pulverulent and/or paste-like and/or liquid form and melted or solidified and/or cured and/or chemically reacted by a laser beam or electron beam or plasma beam to form a cured layer.
Robertson does not teach the newly amended feature of the hollow chamber: has an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate; and extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Robertson / Robertson as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
& b.) As detailed above claims 25 & 26 are not addressed due submitted claim(s) 25 & 26 being directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. Namely, they lack a unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require technical features as detailed above. These technical features are not a special technical features as they do not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Robertson et al. (US 20150132424 A1, hereinafter Robertson).
As detailed in the action of (3 – 28 – 2025) Robertson teaches on ([0014]) that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Figs. 6 – 7) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
& d.) It should be noted that applicant’s claims are directed towards a product, namely a die plate. As such, applicant’s limitation regard the die plate bodies construction i.e., layer by layer is understood to considered a product by process limitation. Accordingly, the case law for product by process claims may be recited. Where, With to the claim recitations regarding the method of forming the apparatus, such relate only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Note also that it is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113.Furthermore, as presented in the aforementioned action, Robertson was modified by Keshavan which teaches on ([0012]) that in some embodiments disclosed herein relate generally to molds that are fabricated using additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, robot casting, or simultaneous casting. With ([0013]) adding that additive manufacturing techniques allow for the part (whether it is the mold or component) to be formed by depositing sequential or successive layers of selected material in designated regions. In some embodiments, a method of manufacturing such a mold includes depositing a first layer on a substrate and depositing multiple sequential layers at least partially adjacent the first layer. As such, Keshavan providing for a known alternative means for manufacturing a mold, namely by molds that are fabricated using additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, ([0012]).
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. As such, Robertson teaches that the layered die plate body may be formed from a metallic material.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., additive manufacturing or material layers can be successively liquefied and/or solidified layer by layer by means of an energy beam. For example, one or more materials can be applied in layers in pulverulent and/or paste-like and/or liquid form and melted or solidified and/or cured and/or chemically reacted by a laser beam or electron beam or plasma beam to form a cured layer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As illustrated in (Figs. 6 – 7), the hollow chamber comprises an axial height and is found to extends over a portion of the cross-sectional area of the die plate. As such, any discrepancies regarding the size of the hollow chamber comprising an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate and is found to extend over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate, the size case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Robertson / Robertson as modified.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 & 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently, claim 5 & 6 reads “…unitary, one-piece materially homogeneous…” it should read “…integral
Appropriate correction is required. 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 10 & 12 – 13 is/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.
Currently claim 1 reads “…whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer…”. It is unclear whom or what the “whose” is refereeing to. It should be clarified, for example “the die plate body’s material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer…” or any other appropriate remedy, for the persistence of claim consistency and clarity. For the purposes of examination “whose” will be understood to be referring to the die plate body.
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, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 20150132424 A1, hereinafter Robertson)Regarding claim 1,
A die plate comprising:
a die plate body comprising;
melt channels; and
a hollow chamber; and
an outlet surface distributed in a ring-shaped formation;
wherein: the melt channels pass through the die plate body and feed onto the outlet surface;
the die plate body is an integral one-piece materially homogeneous layered structural body formed of a metallic material whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer and
the hollow chamber:
has an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate; and
extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate.
Robertson teaches the following:
& c.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
, d.) & e.) ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) the extrusion channels 235 are shown to be arranged within the die which act as applicant’s melt channels, (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) also including that the extrusion orifices 234 are found in an annular / ring-shaped formation around the plate.
& f.) Applicant’s limitation regard the die plate bodies construction i.e., layer by layer is understood to considered a product by process limitation. Accordingly, the case law for product by process claims may be recited. Where, With to the claim recitations regarding the method of forming the apparatus, such relate only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Note also that it is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113.Furthermore, ([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. As such, the die plate is understood to be fabricated from a metallic material. ([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Figs. 6 – 7) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
, h.) & i.) As illustrated in (Figs. 6 – 7) the hollow chamber comprises an axial height and is found to extends over a portion of the cross-sectional area of the die plate. As such, any discrepancies regarding the size of the hollow chamber comprising an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate and is found to extend over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate, the size case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like.
B.) Claim(s) 2 – 6, 8, 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Toshio Matsuo (US 5989009 A, hereinafter Matsuo)Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein: the die plate is configured for hot die granulation of melts;
wherein the outlet surface is configured for receiving exiting melt strands from the melt channels and
presenting them for hot-cut by a rotating blade;
wherein the melt channels are distributed in an annular melt channel pattern; and
wherein the hollow chamber is configured for:
controlling the temperature of the die plate; and/or
thermally insulating the melt channels at least partially within the annular melt channel pattern.
Robertson teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the die plate assembly is for an underwater pelletizing system.
([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210.
([0047]) teaches that extruded polymer enters the water bath 114 at the distal surface 228 of the plate 210 and is divided into pellets 102 by the rotating cutter 122.
As illustrated in (Fig. 8) the extrusion orifices 234 are found to be distributed in an annular melt channel pattern.
& f.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
Highlighting, that only one limitation amongst (f) and (g) is required. However, (Abstract) teaches that the assembly provides a seal against water leakage and effective insulation to prevent heat loss from a heated die plate. (Abstract) teaches at least one insulation chamber for insulating the die plate from the fluid bath located on a downstream side of the die plate.
Regarding Claim 2, Robertson is silent on details concerning the die plate, its functionality nor the melt channel and channel columns construction. In analogous art for a die utilized for forming granules, Matsuo suggests details concerning the construction of the die, in particular the melt channel and channel columns construction and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches provided is a granulating die.
(Col. 1, lines 55-59) teaches that the nozzle holes 2 are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2.
(Col.3 , lines 5-10) teaches that the granulation die is provided with a cutting device 32 comprises: circulating water (cooling water or hot water); and a drive section 36 adapted to rotate a number of cutter blades 34 with the aid of a cutter shaft 35.
As shown in (Fig. 1a and 4b) the nozzle holes 2 are found to be on the outlet surface of the die plate. With (Figs. 3 & 4a) showing the nozzles are distributed in an annular / ring-shaped formation.
& f.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed in (Col. 1, lines 25-30) that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Allowing for the nozzle holes 2 to be sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers.
Highlighting, that only one limitation amongst (f) and (g) is required.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying the melt channel and channel columns construction to comprise a nozzle channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports provides for heat-insulating layers that allow for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the melt channels are formed in channel columns that are arranged at least partially free-standing in the hollow chamber and
are integrally connected to body walls of the die plate body that delimit the hollow chamber on opposite sides.
Regarding Claim 3, Robertson is silent on details concerning the melt channel and channel columns construction. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the construction of the die, in particular the melt channel and channel columns construction and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
(Fig. 1a) shows a die utilized in the extrusion and formation of granules. As depicted, the nozzle holes (2) and thus nozzles are melt channels formed in channel columns. With, (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided between the two annular paths. As shown in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the heating jackets are found to surround / between the nozzles, and are found to be free-standing in the hollow chamber.
Adding, that as shown in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the nozzles are found to be integrally connected in a single piece to the walls of the die plate.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying the melt channel and channel columns construction to comprise a nozzle channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports provides for heat-insulating layers that allow for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the channel columns widen towards opposite end portions and/or have a widening rounding at opposite end portions which forms a harmonious transition to the respective adjacent body wall of the die plate body.
Regarding Claim 4, Robertson is silent on details concerning the channel columns shape. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the channel columns shape and, in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
& b.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the channel columns are shown to comprise columns that widen towards opposite end portions. Adding, that the widen opposite end portions forms a harmonious transition with the body wall of the die plate.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying the nozzle channels to comprise a widening towards opposite end portions, as taught by Matsuo due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known nozzle channel shape, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Matsuo. Additionally, the case law for change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.Furthermore, that 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 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the unitary, one-piece materially homogeneous metallic die plate is formed by additive material application, thereby providing harmonious and organically grown wall contours in the area of the hollow chamber.
Robertson teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. As such, the die plating is understood to comprise a materially homogeneous metallic die plate. ([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die plate 210 can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die plate can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 5, Robertson is silent on details concerning the additive material application. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the additive material application and, in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
(Col. 1, lines 32-37) teaches that a vacuum heat insulating layer 4, which is sealed by electronic beam welding, is formed on the surface side of the granulating die in such a manner that it is adjacent to each of the heating jackets 3. (Col. 2, lines 39-41) teaches that it is preferable that each of the retaining boards is formed by welding the peripheries of two pieces of stainless-steel boards together by electronic beam welding. (Col. 3, lines 37-55) discuss more welding of layers. As such, the material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer by additive material application to each layer via welding.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying manufacturing technique to include material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer by additive material application to each layer via welding as taught by Matsuo due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a manufacturing technique, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Matsuo.Highlighting, the case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214Additionally, that 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 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein:
a support structure is formed in the hollow chamber to support opposite body walls of the die plate body bounding the hollow chamber against each other;
the support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars integrally connected to and/or formed integrally with the opposing body walls of the unitary, one-piece materially homogeneous metallic die plate body; and
more than ten of the support walls and/or pillars are provided in the hollow chamber.
Robertson teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like.
Regarding Claim 6, Robertson is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
([0029]) teaches that the powdered materials may include metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates (where metal includes metals and semi-metals, such as silicon). In some embodiments, the powdered materials may include metals. As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed above (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Where the insulating layers are found to act as applicant supports. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers.
& c.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to be found between each set of nozzle holes. Highlighting, (Figs. 3b & 4a) show the nozzle from a top view, as shown there are found a plurality heating jacket arrays with corresponding heat-insulating layers. Adding, that for each row, there are two heating jackets provided. As depicted, one half of the die comprises ~5 rows of nozzles, amount to ~ 10 rows of nozzles for the entire die. These two heating jackets provided with corresponding supports amount to the at least 10 support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars integrally connected. As such, the number of nozzle rows is understood to determine the number of heating jackets with corresponding supports that are implemented. Accordingly, the duplication of parts may be recited regarding the number of support walls / nozzle implemented. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying the port / hollow chamber to comprise heat-insulating layers as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, implementation of a the port / hollow chamber to comprise heat-insulating layers provides for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein more than 30 of the support walls and/or pillars are provided in the hollow chamber.
Regarding Claim 8, Robertson is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to comprise support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars connected to and/or formed with the walls of the die plate. As further illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to be found between each set of nozzle holes. Highlighting, (Figs. 3b & 4a) show the nozzle from a top view, as shown there are found a plurality heating jacket arrays with corresponding heat-insulating layers. Adding, that for each row, there are two heating jackets provided. As depicted, one half of the die comprises ~5 rows of nozzles, amount to ~ 10 rows of nozzles for the entire die. Namely, (Fig. 3) showing roughly 40 different nozzle holes for about a half of the entire die plate. As such, the number of nozzle rows is understood to determine the number of heating jackets with corresponding supports that are implemented. Accordingly, the duplication of parts may be recited regarding the number of support walls / nozzle implemented. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein a thickness of a respective support walls and/or pillar is less than 40% of a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar.
Regarding Claim 10, Robertson is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 4(b)), the plurality of heating jackets 3 are provided with a hemi-elliptical shape that provides for a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less that that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar. Accordingly, the tailoring of the ratio between the width and height, is understood to be a change in size regarding the hemi-elliptical shape provided. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying and optimizing a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less than that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar, as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide an optimized a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less that that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar as it provides for tailoring the amount of heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 56 – 59). Accordingly, tailoring the size of the heating jackets 3 width / thickness is understood to impact the amount of fluid utilized and thus the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes. As such, citing the case law for result effective variables, 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 12 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein: the support walls and/or pillars are provided with arch-shaped or window-shaped apertures; and
the arch-shaped or window-shaped apertures are rounded at least towards one body wall of the die plate body bounding the hollow chamber.
Regarding Claim 12, Robertson is silent on details concerning the structure of the supports in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the supports in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed above (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-
PNG
media_image1.png
476
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Where the insulating layers are found to act as applicant supports. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers. Adding, that the first arrow points to the top of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers that is the arch-shaped / window-shaped portion of the aperture.
As noted above, the shape provided at the top of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers is that of an arch-shaped or window-shaped aperture. As shown, the lower arrow points to the apertures having a rounded portion that is found towards the wall of the die plate.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.C.) Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Matsuo and in further view of Chen et al. (CN-101,254,632, hereinafter Chen) highlighting evidence from Khan Academy’s Article on Thermal Conductivity (Thermal Conductivity, 2015, hereinafter KATA)
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the support walls and/or pillars have a wall thickness/height ratio of 1:5 or smaller.
Regarding Claim 13, Robertson is silent on details concerning the dimensions of the support walls and/or pillars. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the dimensions of the support structure in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As shown in (Figs. 1a & 4b) the heat-insulating layers 4 are found to have a rectangular shape. Where a rectangular shape is shown to have a larger thickness then height. Highlighting, as shown there are approximately three heat-insulating layers.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 13, Robertson as modified is silent on details concerning the dimensions of the support walls and/or pillars. In analogous art for a die utilized in pelletization of extruded plastic strands, Chen suggests details concerning the dimensions of the support structure in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Chen teaches the following:
([0018]) teaches that a thermal insulation layer with a thickness of 0.1 to 4 mm. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 3-5) a plurality of heat-insulating elements (4) are found with different arrangements. ([0015]) teaches heat-insulating elements can be strip-shaped blocks or cylindrical blocks. ([0016]) adds that the insulating elements can be solid, hollow or channel-shaped. As such, the wall thickness of the supports is understood to be tailorable depending on the desired arrangement i.e., solid, hollow or channel-shaped. Highlighting evidence from KATA which teaches that the thermal conductivity is defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
94
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; where Q represents the amount of heat transferred in a time t , k is the thermal conductivity constant for the material, A is the cross sectional area of the material transferring heat, ΔT is the difference in temperature between one side of the material and the other, and d is the thickness of the material. As such, the material area A (length x width) acts as applicants (thickness) and the thickness d acts as applicants height.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified. By further augmenting and optimizing the size and shape of the heat-insulating elements, as taught by Chen and evidenced by KATA. Highlighting, implementation of a heat-insulating elements with varying sizes and shapes provides for tailoring the amount of heat transferred in a time, as taught by Chen and as evidenced by KATA.
D.) Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Keshavan et al. (US 20160185009 A1, hereinafter Keshavan)Regarding claim 1,
A die plate comprising:
a die plate body comprising;
melt channels; and
a hollow chamber; and
an outlet surface distributed in a ring-shaped formation;
wherein: the melt channels pass through the die plate body and feed onto the outlet surface;
the die plate body is an integral one-piece materially homogeneous layered structural body formed of a metallic material whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer and
the hollow chamber:
has an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate; and
extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate.
Robertson teaches the following:
& c.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
, d.) & e.) ([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) the extrusion channels 235 are shown to be arranged within the die which act as applicant’s melt channels, (Figs. 5 – 6 & 8) also including that the extrusion orifices 234 are found in an annular / ring-shaped formation around the plate.
Applicant’s limitation regard the die plate bodies construction i.e., layer by layer is understood to considered a product by process limitation. Accordingly, the case law for product by process claims may be recited. Where, With to the claim recitations regarding the method of forming the apparatus, such relate only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). Note also that it is Applicant's burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists, In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (CAFC 1983), and Applicant must show that different methods of manufacture produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex: parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788. See MPEP § 2113.Furthermore, ([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like.Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
, h.) & i.) As illustrated in (Fig. ) the hollow chamber / comprises an axial height and is found to extends over a portion of the cross-sectional area of the die plate. As such, any discrepancies regarding the size of the hollow chamber comprising an axial height that is more than 33% of a thickness of the die plate and is found to extends over more than 50% of a cross-sectional area of the die plate, the size case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 1, Robertson teaches the above detailed. Robertson teaching that the die plate may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like, ([0038]). Robertson is silent on details concerning the die plate being fabricated as a layered structural body whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer, (Abstract), the layered structural body comprising metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates, ([0029]). In analogous art for the manufacturing of dies / molds, Keshavan suggest details regarding various means in which to construct the mold, namely layer by layer and in this regard, Keshavan teaches the following:
([0012]) teaches that in some embodiments disclosed herein relate generally to molds that are fabricated using additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, robot casting, or simultaneous casting. With ([0013]) adding that additive manufacturing techniques allow for the part (whether it is the mold or component) to be formed by depositing sequential or successive layers of selected material in designated regions. In some embodiments, a method of manufacturing such a mold includes depositing a first layer on a substrate and depositing multiple sequential layers at least partially adjacent the first layer. ([0029]) teaches that the powdered materials may include metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates (where metal includes metals and semi-metals, such as silicon). In some embodiments, the powdered materials may include metals ([0039]) adding that upon completing any desired machining or other processing, the green state component may be fully cured to create the final component by any means known in the art. ([0029]) teaches that various metals can be used to fabricate the mold.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson. By modifying the mold / die to be fabricated via additive manufacturing, as taught by Keshava. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement additive manufacturing as a means for fabricating the mold / die as it provides for forming a mold corresponding to a CAD model and for forming several molds at once, ([0015]). E.) Claim(s) 2 – 6, 8, 10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view of Keshavan and in further view of Matsuo
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the die plate is configured for hot die granulation of melts;
wherein the outlet surface is configured for receiving exiting melt strands from the melt channels and
presenting them for hot-cut by a rotating blade;
wherein the melt channels are distributed in an annular melt channel pattern; and
wherein the hollow chamber is configured for:
controlling the temperature of the die plate; and/or
thermally insulating the melt channels at least partially within the annular melt channel pattern.
Robertson teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the die plate assembly is for an underwater pelletizing system.
([0039]) teaches that thermoplastic resin to be formed into pellets is provided, in the form of molten polymer, to the extrusion orifices 234 through extrusion channels 235 (shown in FIG. 6) accessible from the proximal surface 230 of the plate 210.
([0047]) teaches that extruded polymer enters the water bath 114 at the distal surface 228 of the plate 210 and is divided into pellets 102 by the rotating cutter 122.
As illustrated in (Fig. 8) the extrusion orifices 234 are found to be distributed in an annular melt channel pattern.
& f.) ([0040]) teaches that the plate 210 includes a plurality of ports 236 (shown in FIG. 8) for receiving heating media, such as steam or heated oil. The heating media enters the ports 236 and is circulated through the plate 210 through annular channels positioned generally adjacent to the extrusion region 232 of the plate 210. As shown, the ports 236 comprise a hollow chamber configured to regulate the temperature of the die plate while thermally insulating the melt channels by passing the heating media in and around them, and not through them.
Highlighting, that only one limitation amongst (f) and (g) is required. However, (Abstract) teaches that the assembly provides a seal against water leakage and effective insulation to prevent heat loss from a heated die plate. (Abstract) teaches at least one insulation chamber for insulating the die plate from the fluid bath located on a downstream side of the die plate.
Regarding Claim 2, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the die plate, its functionality nor the melt channel and channel columns construction. In analogous art for a die utilized for forming granules, Matsuo suggests details concerning the construction of the die, in particular the melt channel and channel columns construction and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches provided is a granulating die.
(Col. 1, lines 55-59) teaches that the nozzle holes 2 are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2.
(Col.3 , lines 5-10) teaches that the granulation die is provided with a cutting device 32 comprises: circulating water (cooling water or hot water); and a drive section 36 adapted to rotate a number of cutter blades 34 with the aid of a cutter shaft 35.
As shown in (Fig. 1a and 4b) the nozzle holes 2 are found to be on the outlet surface of the die plate. With (Figs. 3 & 4a) showing the nozzles are distributed in an annular / ring-shaped formation.
& f.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed in (Col. 1, lines 25-30) that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Allowing for the nozzle holes 2 to be sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers.
Highlighting, that only one limitation amongst (f) and (g) is required.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying the melt channel and channel columns construction to comprise a nozzle channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports provides for heat-insulating layers that allow for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles. Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the melt channels are formed in channel columns that are arranged at least partially free-standing in the hollow chamber and
are integrally connected to body walls of the die plate body that delimit the hollow chamber on opposite sides.
Regarding Claim 3, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the melt channel and channel columns construction. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the construction of the die, in particular the melt channel and channel columns construction and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
(Fig. 1a) shows a die utilized in the extrusion and formation of granules. As depicted, the nozzle holes (2) and thus nozzles are melt channels formed in channel columns. With, (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided between the two annular paths. As shown in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the heating jackets are found to surround / between the nozzles, and are found to be free-standing in the hollow chamber.
Adding, that as shown in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the nozzles are found to be integrally connected in a single piece to the walls of the die plate.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying the melt channel and channel columns construction to comprise a nozzle channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement channel columns that are arranged in the hollow chamber/ports provides for heat-insulating layers that allow for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the channel columns widen towards opposite end portions and/or have a widening rounding at opposite end portions which forms a harmonious transition to the respective adjacent body wall of the die plate body.
Regarding Claim 4, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the channel columns shape. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the channel columns shape and, in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
& b.) As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the channel columns are shown to comprise columns that widen towards opposite end portions. Adding, that the widen opposite end portions forms a harmonious transition with the body wall of the die plate.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying the nozzle channels to comprise a widening towards opposite end portions, as taught by Matsuo due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known nozzle channel shape, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Matsuo. Additionally, the case law for change of shape may be recited. Where, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.Furthermore, that 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 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the unitary, one-piece materially homogeneous metallic die plate is formed by additive material application, thereby providing harmonious and organically grown wall contours in the area of the hollow chamber.
Robertson teaches the following:
([0038]) teaches that the die plate 210 may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like. As such, the die plating is understood to comprise a materially homogeneous metallic die plate. ([0014]) teaches that the gaskets 22, 24 and retainer plates 26, 27 are attached to the die plate 10 by retainer screws 52 inserted through corresponding retainer holes 54. Highlighting, this is best shown in (Fig. 8) where an “exploded” view of the die plate 210 can be seen. As depicted, the various layers of the die plate can be shown which are layered, layer by layer, followed by being consolidated, i.e. to combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole and/or make (something) physically stronger or more solid via the screws and forming the article as single unit. With (Fig. 6) showing the die plate body as an integral one-piece layered structural body. However, if this arrangement is understood not to comprise an integral one-piece structural body. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214, MPEP 2144.
Regarding Claim 5, Robertson as modified by Keshava teaching that the die plate may be formed from metals or metal alloys including, but not limited to, steel, titanium carbide, and the like, ([0038]). Robertson is silent on details concerning the die plate being fabricated as a layered structural body whose material layers are individually consolidated layer by layer, (Abstract), the layered structural body comprising metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates, ([0029]). In analogous art for the manufacturing of dies / molds, Keshavan suggest details regarding various means in which to construct the mold, namely layer by layer and in this regard, Keshavan teaches the following:
([0012]) teaches that in some embodiments disclosed herein relate generally to molds that are fabricated using additive manufacturing, such as 3D printing, robot casting, or simultaneous casting. With ([0013]) adding that additive manufacturing techniques allow for the part (whether it is the mold or component) to be formed by depositing sequential or successive layers of selected material in designated regions. In some embodiments, a method of manufacturing such a mold includes depositing a first layer on a substrate and depositing multiple sequential layers at least partially adjacent the first layer. ([0029]) teaches that the powdered materials may include metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates (where metal includes metals and semi-metals, such as silicon). In some embodiments, the powdered materials may include metals ([0039]) adding that upon completing any desired machining or other processing, the green state component may be fully cured to create the final component by any means known in the art. ([0029]) teaches that various metals can be used to fabricate the mold.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying the mold / die to be fabricated via additive manufacturing, as taught by Keshava. Highlighting, implementation of additive manufacturing as a means for fabricating the mold / die provides for forming a mold corresponding to a CAD model and for forming several molds at once, ([0015]).
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein:
a support structure is formed in the hollow chamber to support opposite body walls of the die plate body bounding the hollow chamber against each other;
the support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars integrally connected to and/or formed integrally with the opposing body walls of the unitary, one-piece materially homogeneous metallic die plate body; and
more than ten of the support walls and/or pillars are provided in the hollow chamber.
Regarding Claim 6, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed above (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Where the insulating layers are found to act as applicant supports. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers.
& c.) ([0029]) teaches the powdered materials may include metal oxides, metal carbides, metal borides, metal nitrides, or metal silicates (where metal includes metals and semi-metals, such as silicon). In some embodiments, the powdered materials may include metals. As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to be found between each set of nozzle holes. Highlighting, (Figs. 3b & 4a) show the nozzle from a top view, as shown there are found a plurality heating jacket arrays with corresponding heat-insulating layers. Adding, that for each row, there are two heating jackets provided. As depicted, one half of the die comprises ~5 rows of nozzles, amount to ~ 10 rows of nozzles for the entire die. These two heating jackets provided with corresponding supports amount to the at least 10 support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars integrally connected. As such, the number of nozzle rows is understood to determine the number of heating jackets with corresponding supports that are implemented. Accordingly, the duplication of parts may be recited regarding the number of support walls / nozzle implemented. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying the port / hollow chamber to comprise heat-insulating layers as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, implementation of a the port / hollow chamber to comprise heat-insulating layers provides for cooling to be interrupted, such that the nozzle holes are sufficiently heated by the heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes, (Col. 1, lines 55-59), i.e., the heat-insulating layers provides for regulating the temperature of the nozzles.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein more than 30 of the support walls and/or pillars are provided in the hollow chamber.
Regarding Claim 8, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to comprise support structure comprises support walls and/or pillars connected to and/or formed with the walls of the die plate. As further illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) the insulating layers are shown to be found between each set of nozzle holes. Highlighting, (Figs. 3b & 4a) show the nozzle from a top view, as shown there are found a plurality heating jacket arrays with corresponding heat-insulating layers. Adding, that for each row, there are two heating jackets provided. As depicted, one half of the die comprises ~5 rows of nozzles, amount to ~ 10 rows of nozzles for the entire die. Namely, (Fig. 3) showing roughly 40 different nozzle holes for about a half of the entire die plate. As such, the number of nozzle rows is understood to determine the number of heating jackets with corresponding supports that are implemented. Accordingly, the duplication of parts may be recited regarding the number of support walls / nozzle implemented. Where, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein a thickness of a respective support walls and/or pillar is less than 40% of a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar.
Regarding Claim 10, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the support in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As illustrated in (Fig. 4(b)), the plurality of heating jackets 3 are provided with a hemi-elliptical shape that provides for a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less than that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar. Accordingly, the tailoring of the ratio between the width and height, is understood to be a change in size regarding the hemi-elliptical shape provided. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshava. By further modifying and optimizing a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less than that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar, as taught by Matsuo. Highlighting, one would be motivated to provide an optimized a width / thickness of the support walls / and/or pillar to be less than that of the a height of the respective support wall and/or pillar as it provides for tailoring the amount of heating fluid flowing through the heating jacket, which prevents the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes 2, (Col. 1, lines 56 – 59). Accordingly, tailoring the size of the heating jackets 3 width / thickness is understood to impact the amount of fluid utilized and thus the solidification of molten resin at the nozzle holes. As such, citing the case law for result effective variables, 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 12 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein: the support walls and/or pillars are provided with arch-shaped or window-shaped apertures; and
the arch-shaped or window-shaped apertures are rounded at least towards one body wall of the die plate body bounding the hollow chamber.
Regarding Claim 12, Robertson as modified by Keshava is silent on details concerning the structure of the supports in the hollow chamber. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the structure of the supports in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Figs. 1a and 4b) and detailed above (Col. 1, lines 25-30) teaching that heating jackets 3 are provided. (Col. 1 , lines 53-56) teaches that heat-insulating layers 4 are formed on the surface side of the granulating die 1 in such a manner that they are adjacent to the heating jackets 3. Where the insulating layers are found to act as applicant supports. As detailed the insulating layers are found in a cavity space that is connected / attached to the heating jacket 3 cavity. Accordingly, the two are found to from a single cavity with a portion of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers. Adding, that the first arrow points to the top of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers that is the arch-shaped / window-shaped portion of the aperture.
As noted above, the shape provided at the top of the shared/single cavity comprising (within) the insulating layers is that of an arch-shaped or window-shaped aperture. As shown, the lower arrow points to the apertures having a rounded portion that is found towards the wall of the die plate.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
F.) Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson in view Keshavan in view of Matsuo and in further view of Chen et al. (CN-101,254,632, hereinafter Chen) highlighting evidence from Khan Academy’s Article on Thermal Conductivity (Thermal Conductivity, 2015, hereinafter KATA)
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 8,
Wherein the support walls and/or pillars have a wall thickness/height ratio of 1:5 or smaller.
Regarding Claim 13, Robertson as modified by Keshavan teaches the above detailed. Robertson as modified by Keshavan is silent on details concerning the dimensions of the support walls and/or pillars. In analogous art as applied above, Matsuo suggests details concerning the dimensions of the support structure in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Matsuo teaches the following:
As shown in (Figs. 1a & 4b) the heat-insulating layers 4 are found to have a rectangular shape. Where a rectangular shape is show to have a larger thickness then height. Highlighting, as shown there are approximately three heat-insulating layers.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 6, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 13, Robertson as modified by Keshavan and Matsuo teaches the above detailed. Robertson as modified by Keshavan and Matsuo is silent on details concerning the dimensions of the support walls and/or pillars. In analogous art for a die utilized in pelletization of extruded plastic strands, Chen suggests details concerning the dimensions of the support structure in the hollow chamber and in this regard, Chen teaches the following:
([0018]) teaches that a thermal insulation layer with a thickness of 0.1 to 4 mm. Highlighting, as shown in (Figs. 3-5) a plurality of heat-insulating elements (4) are found with different arrangements. ([0015]) teaches heat-insulating elements can be strip-shaped blocks or cylindrical blocks. ([0016]) adds that the insulating elements can be solid, hollow or channel-shaped. As such, the wall thickness of the supports is understood to be tailorable depending on the desired arrangement i.e., solid, hollow or channel-shaped. Highlighting evidence from KATA which teaches that the thermal conductivity is defined by
PNG
media_image2.png
94
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; where Q represents the amount of heat transferred in a time t , k is the thermal conductivity constant for the material, A is the cross sectional area of the material transferring heat, ΔT is the difference in temperature between one side of the material and the other, and d is the thickness of the material. As such, the material area A (length x width) acts as applicants (thickness) and the thickness d acts as applicants height.
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 an extrusion die plate assembly implemented in a pelletizer system, the die comprising several nozzles used in forming plastic strands that are cut to form the pellets of Robertson as modified by Keshavan and Matsuo. By further augmenting and optimizing the size and shape of the heat-insulating elements, as taught by Chen and evidenced by KATA. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a heat-insulating elements with varying sizes and shapes provides for tailoring the amount of heat transferred in a time, as taught by Chen and as evidenced by KATA. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karuppoor US 20180133803 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a method of forming a component includes depositing successive layers of a binder and first particles of a first material using a layering device to build a first green segment, depositing successive layers of the binder and second particles of a second material different than the first material using the layering device to build a second green segment.
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