DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed October 08, 2025, has been entered. Claims 27 – 28 are currently amended. Claims 1 – 32 are pending and under examination. Applicant’s amendment to claims 27 – 28 has overcome the rejections under 35 USC § 112(b), previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed April 08, 2025, and are hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and found unpersuasive. Therefore, the claims are being rejected under the same prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, and 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US Pat. No. 4,797,242 A; of record), in view of Heinz Kocher (US Pat. No. 3,572,646; “Kocher”; of record).
Regarding claim 1. Fukuda et al. teaches an extruder capable of making a block of active media (e.g., see Col. 3, ll. 10 – 27) and polymer binder (Col. 3, ll. 25 – 27), comprising
an extruder barrel (cylinder 5, FIG. 8) comprising a flighted heating zone (e.g., see FIGs. 5 – 7, feed zone 1 and compression zone 2) and an unflighted forming zone (construed under the broadest reasonable interpretation “BRI”, metering zone 3, and smooth zone 4, FIGs. 5 – 7; Col. 2, ll. 20 – 22),
wherein the heating zone is longer than the forming zone (see Example 1, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 65, where D= diameter, 40mm: four electric heaters are set in sections 3D-10D, 11D-16D, 17D-20D, and 21D-24D, hence the heating zone has a total length of 22D, and see TABLE 1, Example 1, runs 13 – 14, under BRI, the length of the forming zone is the sum of the metering zone and the smooth zone, hence the total length of the forming zone in example 1 is 7D),
wherein the inside diameter of the extruder barrel "D" increases from D1 to D2 in the unflighted forming zone (see FIG. 8),
wherein the ratio of the heating zone length to the forming zone length is between 20:1 to 5:4 (e.g., Example 1 heating zone total length is 22D, and forming zone total length is 7D – a ratio of approximately 3.14, overlapping with the claimed range of 20:1 to 5:4 [equivalent to 1.25 to 20]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Fukuda et al. does not explicitly disclose, said unflighted forming zone comprises a cooling section, wherein the change in diameter between D1 and D2 is between 0.2% to 1.0%.
Fukuda et al., however, teaches that “the screw diameter in the smooth zone 4 and the inside diameter of the cylinder in the corresponding part may be increased or decreased [notice that Fukuda et al. discloses that “Similar results can be obtained by providing the inner surface of the cylinder with an inclination with respect to the axial direction of the screw” Col. 4, ll. 67 – 68], independently of the diameter of the screw bottom or inside diameter of the cylinder in the flighted section, according to the outside and inside diameters of the desired shaping.”
Col. 3, ll. 45 – 60: “Even if the screw diameter and the inside diameter of the cylinder are substantially equal to the inside and outside diameter of the molding, all or part of the surface of the metering zone (including the smooth zone) of the screw and the inner surface of the corresponding section of the cylinder may be provided with an inclination with respect to the axial direction of the screw. The inclination generally ranges from 1/1000 to 30/1000, preferably from 1/1000 to 10/1000.” “The inclination provided with respect to the axial direction of the screw either reduces the frictional resistance between the resin and the metering zone of the screw or the corresponding part of cylinder, or provides the resin with increased compression so that the resin strongly adhere to each other. If the screw is tapered toward the front end, the frictional resistance between the screw and resin is decreased and application of excessive pressure to the molten resin can be avoided. No such effect is obtained if the taper is less than 1/1000.” See Col. 4, ll. 32 – 68, cont. Col. 5, ll. 1 – 2.
Therefore, Fukuda et al. recognizes the change in diameter caused by providing the unflighted forming section in the inner surface of the cylinder with an inclination with respect to the axial direction of the screw as a result-effective variable.
As a reduction of the frictional resistance between the extruded material and the metering/forming zone of the screw or the corresponding part of barrel and a stronger adhesion to each other of the extruded materials thanks to increased compression are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said change in an inclination of the barrel internal wall with respect to the axial direction of the screw resulting in a change in diameter of the unflighted forming section of the barrel, with said frictional resistance and adherence both changing in response to the change in diameter caused by a change in barrel wall inclination, the precise change in diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed change in diameter between D1 and D2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the change in diameter of the extruder barrel between D1 and D2 in the apparatus of Fukuda et al. to obtain the desired balance between the reduction in frictional resistance and strength of adhesion of the extruded materials to each other (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
In the same field of endeavor of extruder apparatus for transforming and mixing deformable materials, such as plastics (Abstract), Kocher teaches an extruder comprising a cylinder 1 (extruder barrel) comprising a rotor 2 (extruder screw) provided with spiral 4 (flighted zone), and an unflighted forming zone (sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10; see Fig. 1, Col. 5, ll. 22 – 24, Col. 6, ll. 1 – 47); “a longitudinal groove 9 which produces the unrolling of the boundary layer of the medium. An additional diffusor 10a is provided in the region of the diffusor 10 and is obtained by continuously increasing the internal diameter of the cylinder 1.” [analogous to the claimed “wherein the inside diameter of the extruder barrel increases from D1 to D2 in the unflighted forming zone”]. “The diffusor 10a in cooperation with the longitudinal groove 9 of the diffusor 10 produces an additional stabilization of the flow of the medium at the outlet of the turbine. FIG. 6 represents a transverse section through the diffusor 10 of the rotor 2.”; chambers (18 – 22) “for circulation of a fluid for independently controlling the temperature of each chamber.” Col. 6, ll. 48 – 61;
Kocher discloses that “The pressure relief produced by the converging diffusors 10 and 10a, while conserving the size of the turbulence whirls or balls and the number of spherulites occurs simultaneously with the cooling of the wall, i.e. with the passage of thermal energy from the medium into the wall [i.e., a cooling section]. This thermodynamic procedure acts highly stabilizing.” Col. 9, ll. 7 – 32; and that
“In the zone of the stable diffusor 7 [note that sections 7 – 10 are “unlighted forming zones”] the turbulent flow is stabilized and by cooling on the wall, while conserving the frequency, the intensity of the turbulent energy dissipation is restored, so that the laminar condition of flow is obtained. The longitudinal groove 9 provided in the diffusor 10 enables the rolling of the boundary layer and thereby prevents the separation of the laminar flow, and the diffusor 10a formed in the cylinder 1 produces a further relief of pressure, leading to a supplementary stabilization of the medium. The medium thus leaves the turbine in a stabilized laminar flow of high density or crystalline condition and with aligned energy centers or mass balls.” Col. 9, ll. 48 – 60.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the barrel unflighted forming section (e.g., Fukuda’s smooth zone 4) in the extruder of Fukuda to comprise a cooling section comprising of chambers for circulation of a fluid for independently controlling the temperature of each chamber, as taught by Kocher Col. 6, ll. 48 – 61, for the purpose of e.g., obtain a laminar flow condition of the extruded medium, since Kocher teaches that by cooling on the wall in combination with the relief of pressure due to the change in diameter of the barrel (10a), “the medium thus leaves the turbine in a stabilized laminar flow of high density or crystalline condition and with aligned energy centers or mass balls.” Kocher Col. 9, ll. 48 – 60. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, and claim 3. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the increase of diameter D-1 to D2 in the forming zone is from 0.2 to 0.9% (0.4% to 0.65% - claim 3).
As a reduction of the frictional resistance between the extruded material and the metering/forming zone of the screw or the corresponding part of barrel, and the degree of adhesion of the extruded materials to each other (which increases due to increased compression) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said change in an inclination of the barrel internal wall with respect to the axial direction of the screw resulting in a change in diameter of the unflighted forming section of the barrel, with said frictional resistance and adherence both changing in response to the change in diameter caused by a change in barrel wall inclination, the precise change in diameter would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed change in diameter between D1 and D2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the change in diameter of the extruder barrel between D1 and D2 in the apparatus of Fukuda et al. to obtain the desired balance between the reduction in frictional resistance and strength of adhesion of the extruded materials to each other (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 4. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the change in diameter for from D1 to D2 occurs over 10% to 100% of the length of the forming zone.
Nonetheless, Fukuda et al. discloses the change in diameter can be applied over the smooth zone 4 (Col. 3, ll. 45 – 60, Col. 4, ll. 32 – 68, cont. Col. 5, ll. 1 – 2), and in FIGs. 5 – 8, Fukuda et al. shows different embodiments of the extruder wherein the smooth section is designed with different lengths. Hence, the change in diameter can occur over a range of lengths. Furthermore, Fukuda et al. discloses that changing the diameter over different lengths of the metering zone (e.g., over the whole length, or over part of the length) in combination with changes to the inclination of the diameter change could results in changes in the compression applied to the molded mixture (Col. 4, ll. 32 – 68, cont. Col. 5, ll. 1 – 2).
As a reduction of the frictional resistance between the extruded material and the metering/forming zone of the screw or the corresponding part of barrel, and the degree of adhesion of the extruded materials to each other (which increases due to increased compression) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said change in an inclination of the barrel internal wall with respect to the axial direction of the screw resulting in a change in diameter over the length or part of the length of the unflighted forming section of the barrel, with said frictional resistance and adherence both changing in response to the change in diameter caused by a change in barrel wall inclination, the precise change in diameter and length over which the change in diameter occurs would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length for the change in diameter between D1 and D2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length over which the change in diameter of the extruder barrel between D1 and D2 in the apparatus of Fukuda et al. occurs to obtain the desired balance between the reduction in frictional resistance and degree of adhesion of the extruded materials to each other (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 5. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the heating zone length to forming zone length is from 10:1 to 5:4 (see the discussion of Fukuda et al. in claim 1 above; e.g., Example 1 heating zone total length is 22D, and forming zone total length is 7D – a ratio of approximately 3.14, overlapping with the claimed range of 10:1 to 5:4 [equivalent to 1.25 to 10]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher's heating zone length to forming zone ratio range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 6. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the heating zone is from 0.25 to 2.0 meters long (e.g., Fukuda et al. Example 1 heated sections has a length of 22D, where D=40 mm, hence a total length of approx. 0.88 meters long - overlapping with the claimed range of 0.25 to 2.0 meters long), and comprises 1 to 10 heating sections (e.g., Fukuda et al discloses four heating sections 3D-10D, 11D-16D, 17D-20D and 21D-24D, Col. 8, ll. 45 – 51 - overlapping with the claimed range of 1 to 10 heating sections). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher's heating zone length and heating sections range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Furthermore, as per MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B):
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 7. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the forming zone is from 0.01 to 1 meters (see the discussion of Fukuda et al. in claim 1 above; e.g., Example 1, TABLE 1, forming zone total length is 7D, where D= 40mm, hence a forming zone length of approx. 0.28 meters, overlapping with the claimed range of 0.01 to I meters). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher's forming zone length range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 8. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the forming zone is from 0.05 to 0.2 meters
Nonetheless, Fukuda et al. discloses “If the length of the smooth zone is less than 1D (e.g., in Example 1 with D= 40mm, hence a length of 0.04 meters), a shaped product extruded from the cylinder deforms and continuous production of the desired shape is difficult. If the length of the smooth zone is greater than 15D (e.g., in Example 1 with D= 40mm, hence a length of 0.6 meters), a high molding pressure results and may threaten the mechanical integrity of the extruder.” Col. 3, ll. 64 – 68, cont. Col. 4, ll. 1 – 2;
“In other words, the compression ratio of the screw and the length of the smooth zone must be appropriate in order to ensure consistent extrusion and produce articles of good quality.” Col. 4, ll. 20 – 25.
Therefore, Fukuda et al. discloses a smooth zone 4 should be between 0.04 meters to 0.6 meters. If the forming zone in Fukuda et al. is comprised by the metering zone 3 and smooth zone 4, taking Example 1, run 14, where the metering zone 3 is 4D, or 0.16 meters, choosing a smooth zone 4 length of 0.04 meters, as taught by Fukuda et al., would result in a forming zone of 0.2 meters, overlapping with the claimed range of from 0.05 to 0.2 meters.
As the shaped of an extruded product and the mechanical integrity of the extruder are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said length of the smooth zone, with said shaped of an extruded product and the mechanical integrity of the extruder both changing in response to the change in the smooth zone length (e.g., lengths less than 1D resulting in deformed extruded products, and lengths higher than 15D resulting in high molding pressure results that may threaten the mechanical integrity of the extruder), the precise length of the forming zone would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of length for the forming zone cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length in the forming zone in the apparatus of Fukuda/Kocher to obtain the desired balance between the extruded product shape and optimal molding pressure (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 12. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, extruder of claim 1, wherein the inside diameter of the barrel "D" in the flighted zone is between 1 cm to 50 cm (e.g., Fukuda et al. Example 1 discloses a diameter D for the barrel flighted zone of 40 mm, or 4 cm, overlapping the claimed range of from between 1 cm to 50 cm. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher's range for the inside diameter of the barrel flighted zone that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 13. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the inside diameter of the barrel "D" in the flighted zone is between 1 cm to 25 cm (e.g., Fukuda et al. Example 1 discloses a diameter D for the barrel flighted zone of 40 mm, or 4 cm, overlapping the claimed range of from between 1 cm to 50 cm. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher's range for the inside diameter of the barrel flighted zone that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 9 – 11, 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US 4797242 A), in view of Heinz Kocher (US Pat. 3,572,646; “Kocher”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koslow (US Pat. 5,189,092).
Regarding claim 9. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the cooling section is from 0.01 to 1 meters.
In the same field of endeavor of method and apparatuses for extruding solid articles (Abstract), Koslow teaches a method and apparatus comprising a hopper (feed bin 10), the hopper 10 comprising an auger 42, the hopper 10 “filled with a substantially uniform mixture of a powder or granular material 38 comprising particles of a relatively low softening temperature binder such as, for example, polyethylene, and particles of a higher softening temperature primary material such as, for example, activated carbon,” [analogous to the claimed “active media”] Col. 3, ll. 35 – 41;
an extruder barrel 12, feed screw 14, feeding material 38 through, where an output end of a die 26 (forming zone) is cooled by a cooling fluid jacket 32 (analogous to Kocher chambers) having a cooling fluid inlet 34 and outlet 36, the cooling fluid preferably being water Col. 3, ll. 28 – 30;
Koslow discloses that “the cooling section must be long enough that the solid article produced is cooled sufficiently to retain its structural integrity when it emerges from the die without contributing uncontrolled amounts of back pressure that can lead to material lock up.” Col. 5, ll. 43 – 48;
Koslow Col. 10, ll. 64 – 68, cont. Col. 11, ll. 1 – 24, discloses an EXAMPLE 1 where a feed mixture of 55% by weight Barnaby Sutcliffe coconut shell activated carbon 50x200 mesh particles, 30% by weight micronized Mn2-400 mesh particles and 15% by weight 510 grade polyethylene binder particles was mixed in a 600 lb. lot in a plow mixer for five hours, then feed into an extruder with each heating and cooling zones being 6" in length, or 0.1524 meters – overlapping with the claimed range of from 0.01 to 1 meters. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the length of the cooling section in the extruder of Fukuda/Kocher by selecting the portion of Koslow's cooling section length range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the length of the cooling zone in the extruder of Fukuda/Kocher with the teaching of Koslow for the purpose of e.g., making the cooling zone long enough to sufficiently cooled the solid article produced to retain its structural integrity when it emerges from the die (forming zone) without contributing uncontrolled amounts of back pressure that can lead to material lock up, as taught by Koslow. Col. 5, ll. 43 – 48. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 10. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, except for wherein the cooling section is from 0.05 to 0.2 meters (e.g., Koslow teaches cooling zones being 6" in length, or 0.1524 meters – overlapping with the claimed range of from 0.01 to 1 meters.) Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the length of the cooling section in the extruder of Fukuda/Kocher by selecting the portion of Koslow's cooling section length range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the length of the cooling zone in the extruder of Fukuda/Kocher with the teaching of Koslow for the purpose of e.g., making the cooling zone long enough to sufficiently cooled the solid article produced to retain its structural integrity when it emerges from the die (forming zone) without contributing uncontrolled amounts of back pressure that can lead to material lock up, as taught by Koslow. Col. 5, ll. 43 – 48. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 11. Fukuda/Kocher teaches the extruder of claim 1, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the cooling section comprises from 20 to 100% of the forming zone.
As the structural integrity and the amount of back pressure are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said length of the cooling section, with said structural integrity and the amount of back pressure both changing in response to the change in the cooling section length (e.g., not enough length resulting in insufficient cooling, hence insufficient structural integrity, and too much length resulting in material lock up from uncontrolled amounts of back pressure), the precise length of the cooling section would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range of length for the cooling section cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was effectively filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length in the cooling section in the apparatus of Fukuda/Kocher to obtain the desired balance between the sufficient cooling to retain structural integrity without contributing uncontrolled amounts of back pressure that can lead to material lock up, as taught by Koslow (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 14. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the extruder further comprises a feeder hopper (e.g., see Koslow’s feed bin 10, FIG. 1), said feeder hopper 10 comprising an auger 42 (see Koslow FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 15. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow teaches the extruder of claim 1, wherein the extruder further comprises an external backpressure device (see Koslow back pressure device 46, Col. 3, ll. 67 – 68, cont. Col. 4, ll. 1 – 15).
Regarding claim 16. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow teaches the extruder of claim 15, wherein the external backpressure device is selected from the group consisting of a puller (see Koslow back pressure device 46, Col. 3, ll. 67 – 68, cont. Col. 4, ll. 1 – 15).
Claims 17 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US 4797242 A), in view of Heinz Kocher (US Pat. 3,572,646; “Kocher”), and Koslow (US Pat. 5,189,092), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Koslow (US 2016/0121249 A1; “US’249”).
Regarding claim 17. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow teaches a method for extruding a block of active media (e.g., see Fukuda et al. Col. 3, ll. 10 – 27; e.g., “activated carbon” Koslow Col. 7, ll. 9 – 19) and polymer binder (e.g., Fukuda ; Koslow Col. 6, ll. 55 – 68, cont. Col. 7, ll. 1 – 8 “The binder can be composed of nearly any thermoplastic material including, for example, polyolefins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutene-1, and poly-4-methyl-pentene-1; polyvinyls such as polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, and polyvinylidene chloride”);
the method comprising providing polymer binder comprising polymer and active media (e.g., see Koslow EXAMPLE 1),
feeding the polymer binder and active media into the extruder of claim 1 and
extruding the resulting polymer binder and active media blend to form a block of immobilized media (e.g., see Koslow EXAMPLE 1).
Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow does not specifically discloses the polymer binder being PVDF polymer binder.
Nonetheless, Koslow discloses the use of similar polymers/polymer binders e.g., Col. 6, ll. 55 – 68, cont. Col. 7, ll. 1 – 8 “The binder can be composed of nearly any thermoplastic material including” –inter alia– polyvinyls such as polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, and polyvinylidene chloride.
In the same field of endeavor of method of making block products comprising a thermoplastic binder fused with active particles (Abstract), Koslow (US’249) teaches a method of making “a carbon block including a poly(vinylidene difluoride) (“PVDF”) binder that supports a network of activated carbon particles, such as a Kynar® fluoropolymer resin.” [0014]; by extrusion (e.g., see [0043]); doughnut type back pressure device Col. 12, ll. 1 – 30;
US’249 [0015], discloses that “Unlike polyethylene-based binders, PVDF binders are generally resistant to a broad spectrum of solvents, and can be safely used at temperatures above 120 degrees Centigrade. Moreover, PVDF binders can be obtained with very small average particles sizes, including particles sizes of less than 20 micrometers.”;
Furthermore, US’249 Example 3, [0050] discloses that “Because of the low adhesion of PVDF to the extruder surfaces compared to LDPE, the PVDF-based mixture can be extruded at up to four times greater speed than a LDPE-based mixture within the same final carbon block geometry. This allows for greatly enhanced productivity during production.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed, to modify the polymer binder in the method for extruding a block of active media and a polymer binder of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow, by substituting the polymer binder of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow with a PVDF polymer binder, as taught by US’249, with reasonable expectations of success, and predictable results, since a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to pursue the substitution for the purpose of e.g., improve productivity during production, since US’249 Example 3, [0050] teaches that “Because of the low adhesion of PVDF to the extruder surfaces compared to LDPE, the PVDF-based mixture can be extruded at up to four times greater speed than a LDPE-based mixture within the same final carbon block geometry. This allows for greatly enhanced productivity during production.” See MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 18. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 teaches a method for extruding a carbon block the method comprising providing PVDF polymer binder and active media, providing an extruder comprising an extruder barrel (see the discussion of claim 17 above),
said extruder barrel comprising a flighted heating zone and an unflighted forming zone (see the discussion of claim 1 above),
said forming zone includes a cooling section (see the discussion of claim 1 above),
wherein the ratio of the heating zone length to the forming zone length is between 20:1 to 5:4 (e.g., Fukuda et al. Example 1 heating zone total length is 22D, and forming zone total length is 7D – a ratio of approximately 3.14, overlapping with the claimed range of 20:1 to 5:4 [equivalent to 1.25 to 20]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I);
wherein the inside diameter of the extruder barrel "D" increases from D1 to D2 in the forming zone (see the discussion of claim 1 above),
wherein the change in diameter between D1 to D2 is between 0.2% to 0.9% (see the discussion of claim 1 above),
feeding the PVDF polymer binder and active media to the extruder (e.g., US’249 [0050]),
extruding the PVDF polymer binder and active media blend to form a block of immobilized media (US’249 [0050]).
Regarding claim 19. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the PVDF polymer binder comprising PVDF polymer and active media are blended prior to being feed to the extruder (e.g., see US’249 [0040 – 0043]).
Regarding claim 20. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the heat zone temperatures are from 20 degree C below the melting temperature of the binder, up to 80 degree C above the melting temperature of the binder (Koslow discloses “The temperature is usually about 25 °C – 100 °C above the binder polymer's melting point” Col. 9, ll. 9 – 10, overlapping with the claimed range of from 20 degree C below the melting temperature of the binder, up to 80 degree C above the melting temperature of the binder). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249's range for the heat zone temperatures range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 21. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the heat zone temperatures are between 130 to 260 °C (e.g., see Koslow Example 2, “The extruder barrel was maintained at ambient room temperature, about 20 °C, while the single heat zone of the die was maintained at 500 °F (260 °C)”, overlapping with the claimed range of from between 130 to 260 °C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249's range for the heat zone temperatures range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 22 – 32 Fukuda et al. (US 4797242 A), in view of Heinz Kocher (US Pat. 3,572,646; “Kocher”), Koslow (US Pat. 5,189,092), and Koslow (US 2016/0121249 A1; “US’249”), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yen et al. (US 2012/0329923 A1).
Regarding claim 22. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the binder comprises a VDF/HFP copolymer having a melt viscosity of from 5 to 80kP.
Nonetheless, US’249 [0014] discloses the binder comprises “copolymers containing at least 70 weight percent of vinylidene difluoride units.” (VDF).
In the same field of endeavor of fluoropolymer compositions and methods of producing a solid fluoropolymer [0001], Yen et al. teaches a PVDF/HFP product comprising a VDF/HFP copolymer (see Table 5, Example 16) having a melt viscosity of from 6 – 12 KPa (approximately 60 to 120 kP) – overlapping with the claimed range of from 5 to 80 kP. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Yen et al. at [0022] discloses, “Preferred copolymers include those comprising… from about 60 to about 99 weight percent, preferably from 71 to 98 weight percent VDF, and correspondingly from about 1 to about 40 weight percent, preferably 2 to 29 weight percent HFP”;
[0060] “a composite polymer composition is produced by adding materials into the aqueous fluoropolymer dispersion or suspension between polymerization and entry into the dewatering extruder. The materials should be non-water soluble. Useful materials include, but are not limited to, talc and other minerals, carbon black, graphite fibers, glass fibers, exfoliated nanoclays, carbon nanotubes, ZnO and other metal salts and oxides. The materials are mixed into the composition in the extruder, and produce composite pellets, such as a conductive PVDF. This is especially useful for materials in a latex or aqueous dispersion or suspension form. The blending of the materials with the fluoropolymer in the dewatering extruder produces nano-scale mixing.”;
[0061 – 0066] Yen et al. discloses that the process and composition results in a fluoropolymer having “a very low level of water-soluble or water-miscible impurities,” “very good heat stability (low yellowing during heat processing).
"It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850, 205 USPQ 1069. 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to substitute the PVD copolymer for the PVDF binder in the method of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 with a PVD/HFP copolymer because Yen et al. discloses that it is known in the art to utilize a combination of PVD and HFP copolymer composition as preferred copolymers in the production of solid fluoropolymer, with the produced fluoropolymer solid having low yellowing during heat processing. (Yen et al. [0022, 0060 – 0066]). A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2143 (I) (B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modify the method of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249 by selecting the portion of Yen et al. VDF/HFP copolymer melt viscosity range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 23. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the PVDF polymer comprises from 5 % to 20 % by weight HFP (e.g., see Yen et al. [0022] “2 to 29 weight percent HFP”).
Regarding claim 24. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the combination of active media and polymer binder contain at least 2 wt.% or more of fine particles (e.g., US’249 [0040] “poly(vinylidene difluoride) binder powder may have an average particle size of less than 20 micrometers, less than 12 micrometers, or even about 5 micrometers.”; US’249 [0049] “mixtures of PVDF binder (Arkema Incorporated, King of Prussia, Pa., PVDF grade 741) and activated carbon [active media],” “The mixtures included 8%, 7%, 6% and 5% PVDF binder by weight respectively.”).
The Examiner notes that the term “fine particles” is being interpreted to refer to particles of less than 50 microns in light of the instant application specification (US published application US 2024/0017462 A1, paragraph [0016]) “The particle size of fine particles is less than 50 micron, preferably less than 20 microns, most preferably less than 10 microns”.
Regarding claim 25. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the PVDF polymer comprises discrete PVDF polymer particles of from 50 to 500 nm in size (US’249 [0040] “poly(vinylidene difluoride) binder powder may have an average particle size of less than 20 micrometers, less than 12 micrometers, or even about 5 micrometers.”; e.g., see Yen et al. [0036]), as an average discrete particle size and agglomerates of the discrete polymer particles said agglomerates are from 1 to 150 micrometer (see Yen et al. [0068]) in size.
Regarding claim 26. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the PVDF polymer binder contains at least 20%, preferably at least 50%, and up to 100 wt.% of fine particles (e.g., US’249 [0013] “ the polymeric powder is a thermoplastic having at least a moderate melt flow index, and an average particle size of less than 20 micrometers, less than 15 micrometers, less than 12 micrometers, less than 10 micrometers, or even approximately 5 micrometers (or less).” – Therefore, up to a 100% of the PVDF polymer binder might contain fine particles).
Regarding claim 27. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein an active media comprises activated carbon (US’249 [0049]).
Regarding claim 28. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the binder comprises from 1 to 30 weight percent, based on the total weight of the binder and active media (e.g., US’249 “The mixtures included 8%, 7%, 6% and 5% PVDF binder by weight respectively.” – overlapping with the claimed range of from 1 to 30 weight percent). Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen's weight range for the binder based on the total weight of the binder and active media that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 29. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the block of active media and PVDF polymer binder has a density of up to 0.95 g/cc (Koslow Col. 9, ll. 26 – 35 “The die design and operating conditions must be adjusted exactingly to obtain a product with the desired final density which, in the case of activated carbon filters, is generally within the range of 0.57 to 0.85 gm/cm3” – overlapping with the claimed range of up to 0.95 g/cc. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen's block of active media and PVDF polymer binder density range that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 30. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches method of claim 17, wherein the extruder runs at a rate of from 0.5 cm to 50 cm of extruded block per minute (e.g., Koslow EXAMPLE 3, Col. 12, ll. 1 – 30, discloses extruded product at a rate of about 2.5” (6.35 cm per minute) to 3.0” (7.62 cm per minute), overlapping with the claimed range of from 0.5 cm to 50 cm per minute. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen's range for the heat zone temperatures that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 184 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 31. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches method of claim 17, wherein the heating zone is from 0.25 to 2m long (see the discussion of claim 6 above), wherein the forming zone is from 0.075 to 0.20 meters long (see the discussion of claims 7 – 8 above), wherein the cooling section comprises from 27 to 72% of the forming zone (see the discussion of claims 9 – 11 above), and
wherein the expansion of D1 to D2 along with the barrel of the extruder is from 0.3% to 0.7% (see the discussion of claims 1 – 3 above).
Regarding claim 32. Fukuda/Kocher/Koslow/US’249/Yen teaches the method of claim 17, further comprising exerting backpressure on the extruding block (see the discussion of claims 15 – 16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 08, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “Fukuda teaches extrusion for making pipes,” “Pipes and a block of active media are not the same thing,” “To modify Fukuda by cooling the forming section would make the extruder of Fukuda unfit for its purpose as Fukuda teaches heating along the barrel to set the thermosetting polymer,” and that “The cooling jacket of Fukuda is incompatible with the stream temperature of polymer crystalline melt point (160C-170C for PVDF) making process of Fukuda incompatible with the process of Yen.” (Remarks pages 5-7), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
From the outset, the Examiner notes that the claims are directed to an apparatus (i.e., an extruder), and as such, limitations reciting the intended use of the apparatus (e.g., Applicant’s argument that Fukuda teaches extruder for making pipes not active media), are not germane to its patentability and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that said extruder intended use limitation is limiting, the examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that, “To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim.” As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, there is nothing on the record that suggests Fukuda’s extruder is not capable of extruding a block of active media and PVDF polymer binder. See MPEP § 2114 (II), MPEP § 2111.02 (II). See, e.g., In re Schreiber:
"It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We conclude that this is true whether an intended use recitation is recited in the preamble or, as in the present case, in a wherein clause. See Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
As to Applicant’s argument that the extruder of Fukuda fails to obviate the claimed extruder, since “Pipes and a block of active media are not the same thing,” it is noted that said argument is directed to the material worked upon and/or article produced by the claimed extruder. However, the material worked upon is not germane to the patentability of apparatus itself and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. As previously discussed, the prior art extruder comprises all the structural limitations of the claimed extruder, and therefore would be capable of performing the intended use (e.g., extruding active media).
As to Applicant’s argument that “To modify Fukuda by cooling the forming section would make the extruder of Fukuda unfit for its purpose as Fukuda teaches heating along the barrel to set the thermosetting polymer.” This assertion is not persuasive of error, at least because it is directed to the manner of operating the claimed extruder, since, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. Furthermore, it is noted that the rejection combining Fukuda’s unflighted forming section (smooth zone 4) with the teachings of Kocher to comprise a cooling section comprising of chambers for circulation of a fluid capable of independently controlling the temperature of each chamber, is not necessarily mutually exclusive of Fukuda’s heating along the barrel as argued.
For example, modifying Fukuda’s unflighted forming section with Kocher cooling chambers in an alternating pattern of Fukuda’s heaters 8 and Kocher cooling sections along the unflighted forming zone, or, if Fukuda’s heaters 8 are replaced by Kocher’s cooling chambers, by controlling the temperature of the fluid circulating through Kocher’s chambers e.g., working as a reversible heat pump