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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 13, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 8182724) in view of Prochazka et al. (US 2022/0170426).
Regarding to claims 1, 13, and 20:
Zhang et al. discloses an extruder for polymeric materials, comprising:
a hollow extrusion cylinder (FIG. 1, element 12), extending along a longitudinal direction and having an inlet (FIG. 1, element 18) for receiving pellets of polymeric material, and an outlet for expelling molten polymeric material (FIG. 1, element 22);
an extruder screw (FIG. 1, element 14) connected to a motor (FIG. 1, element 26) to rotate inside the extrusion cylinder and to move the polymeric material from the inlet to the outlet;
heaters coupled to the extrusion cylinder (FIG. 1, element 20);
a sensor system configured to measure values of a recipe parameter and of a monitoring parameter; wherein the monitoring parameter is based on the following quantities: pressure of the molten polymeric material measured downstream of the extruder screw, and temperature of the molten polymeric material (FIG. 1: The temperature sensor 24 measures the temperature of the material at the outlet. Abstract: Operating parameters can include screw plasticizing back pressure, screw injection pressure);
a processing unit, programmed to store a target value for the recipe parameter and to
perform a feedback control on the heaters to bring the recipe parameter to the target value and to keep it there (FIG. 2: “Barrel heating temperature set value” (step 48a) reads on the claimed target value. The feedback control loop 52a feeds back the measured temperature to drive the barrel zone’s heater (step 54a)); the processing unit further generates alert data including a diagnostic information item configured to indicate whether there is an anomaly in the material (FIG. 4a, step 124: System alarm for back pressure of the material outside control limit).
Zhang et al. however does not teach wherein the processing unit is programmed to process a first value of the monitoring parameter, measured at a first time instant, and a second value of the monitoring parameter, measured at a second time instant, after the first time instant, and is programmed to generate alert data in response to a comparison between the first and the second value of the monitoring parameters.
Prochazka et al. discloses a method that monitors an actuator state-of-wear comprising measuring at a first time to obtain a first value (FIG. 7, step 500: During a first period of time, calculating a reference value for a first extremum position of the actuator from the observation), measuring at a second time after the first time to obtain a second value (FIG. 7, step 502: During a second period of time after the first period of time, calculating a second value for a first extremum position of the actuator from the observation), and generating an alert in response to a comparison between the first and second values (FIG. 7, step 502: Comparing the second value to the reference value to determine a state of wear of the actuator and alerting the state of wear to a centralized database (step 506)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to modify Zhang to include the process of observing the operation of the motor in Zhang’s extruder at at least two different times to obtain at least two different values and comparing such two different values to determine the state of wear of the motor as disclosed by Prochazka et al. (FIG. 7).
Regarding to claims 5, 7, 20-21: wherein the processing unit is programmed to store a first succession of values for the monitoring parameter captured in succession one after the other and spaced by a first predetermined time interval, wherein the first value of the monitoring parameter and the second value of the monitoring parameter are selected from the values of the first succession, wherein the processing unit is programmed to process a plurality of different monitoring parameters and to generate the alert data in response to a corresponding plurality of comparisons performed for the respective monitoring parameters of the plurality of monitoring parameters (Prochazka et al.: FIG. 4 shows a plurality of measurements at spacing intervals for determining and alerting the state of wear).
Regarding to claim 22: wherein the processing unit is programmed to generate the alert data also as a function of a duration of the time interval between the first and the second time instant, wherein the monitoring parameter is based on a speed of the extruder screw (Zhang et al.: Operating parameters include screw rotational speed), and wherein the alert data includes a diagnostic information item indicating whether the extruder screw is worn (Prochazka et al.: FIG. 4 shows a plurality of measurements at spacing intervals for determining and alerting the state of wear to identify or predict a need of maintenance or replacement).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the processing unit is programmed to derive, from the first succession of values, a second succession of values, spaced by a second predetermined time interval, wherein the second succession of values is a subset of the first succession of values and wherein the second predetermined time interval is greater than the first predetermined time interval is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see the rejection above for newly citations and explanations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853