DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 02/04/2026, claims 11-20 are pending. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn based on the restriction requirement. Claims 11-18 are currently amended. Claims 11-18 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objection/Rejection
Previous 35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment and argument. However, new rejections, although using the same references, have been made in view of the Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2004/0009255 (“Lamoine et al” hereinafter Lamoine) and US5,356,208 (Tadmor).
Regarding Claim 11, Lamoine teaches an extrusion device (Figure 1, extrusion device 1) for forming, as a thin strip, a product based on a rubber mixture ([0003]), the extrusion device comprising a roller that rotates (Figure 1, roller 5, all rollers rotate), an inlet orifice (Figure 1, inlet orifice 15) allowing the rubber mixture to flow ([0037]), and a vault (Figure 1, vault 6) circumferentially covering at least part of an outer surface of the roller (Figure 1 and [0019], a vault 6 partially circumferentially covering the surface 51 of the roller 5), the vault including a wall having on an inner surface oriented towards the roller (Figures 1 and 2), projecting threads (Figure 1, thread 68) so as to delimit with an outer surface of the roller a chamber for plasticizing the rubber mixture ([0037] and [0065], the thread delimit the rubber mixture within the chamber), the rubber mixture being driven from the inlet orifice towards an extrusion orifice into a gap defining a profile of the product ([0019], the rubber mix being driven from the inlet orifice into the gap situated between the vault and the roller towards an extrusion orifice defining the profile of the product), delimited by the wall of the vault and the outer surface of the roller ([0019], the extrusion orifice is delimited by a wall which cooperates with the external surface of the roller; the vault carries on its internal surface oriented towards the roller projecting threads in order to delimit with the surface of the roller a chamber for plasticizing the mix).
Lamoine fails to teach wherein a groove in a form of a continuous helix is made on the outer surface of the roller, the groove including several striations arranged one beside another in a direction of movement of the rubber mixture, the striations being spaced apart from one another so as to create a thread of predetermined pitch, and wherein thread crests created by the continuous helix are tangential to crests of projecting threads on the vault such that the thread crests created by the continuous helix and the crests of the projecting threads on the vault are substantially in contact with one another.
However, Tadmor teaches herein a groove (Figure 1, channel 26) in a form of a continuous helix is made on the outer surface of the roller (Figure 1, channel 26 are in a continuous helix pattern located on the screw body 33 of the screw element 32), the groove including several striations arranged one beside the other in a direction of movement of the rubber mixture (Figures 1 and 3, the channel includes a plurality of helical threads 71-74 arranged in the direction of movement of the mixture), and the striations being spaced apart from one another so as to create a thread of predetermined pitch (Figure 1, helical threads 71-74 and Col. 12, lines 21-32).
Lamoine discloses the crests of projecting threads on the vault formed parallel to the length of the roller (Figure 1). Tadmor discloses helical threads 71-74 (Figure 1) formed along the outer surface of the screw 32. Tadmor further discloses the helical threads are substantially in contact with the barrel (Figure 1 and Col. 4, lines 29-40), which is equivalent to the vault. Thus, Lamoine in view of Tadmor discloses wherein thread crests created by the continuous helix are tangential to crests of projecting threads on the vault (Figure 1 of Lamoine discloses the projecting thread on the vault formed parallel to the length of the roller and Figure 1 of Tadmor discloses helical threads 71-74 formed along the outer surface of the screw 32. Thus, the projecting thread and the helical threads are tangential to each other) such that the thread crests created by the continuous helix and the crests of the projecting threads on the vault are substantially in contact with one another (Tadmor, the helical threads are substantially in contact with the barrel, which is equivalent to the vault.
Lamoine and Tadmor are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extrusion device for manufacturing a product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus of Lamoine such that it teaches all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Tadmor to improve dispersive mixing ability (Col. 2, line 5-6). Furthermore, the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known screw design for an extruder to improve the mixing and transfer of the mixture. MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 12, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 11, further comprising an extrusion plate (Lamoine, Figure 2, extrusion plate 20) that adjustably delimits ([0046]), with the outer surface of the roller, the extrusion orifice ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 12, wherein each striation (Tadmor, Figure 1, helical threads 71-74) has a cross section of predetermined geometry (Figure 2), with a rounded shape at a bottom of each striation (Figure 1), and with pointed edges (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 13, wherein an angle between the pointed edges of the striations and the outer surface of the roller is less than or equal to 90° (Tadmor, Figure 1 and Col. 3, lines 29-30, the helix angle is the angle between pointed edge of the flight to the outer surface of the screw body 33 is equal to about 17-18 degrees which is less than 90°).
Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I) and In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) for further details.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 11, wherein the projecting threads comprise: at least two axial threads extending substantially axially from the wall of the vault towards the outer surface of the roller (Lamoine, Figure 2, a plurality of thread 68 and [0049]); and one or more threads oriented in different directions relative to the at least two axial threads (Figure 2, one or more consecutive sectors 67 oriented perpendicular to the plurality of thread 68), selected from among helical threads or convergent or divergent threads ([0051]).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 11, wherein the vault is pivotably mounted about an axis of rotation borne by a support element of the roller (Lamoine, Figure 1 and [0043]).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2004/0009255 (“Lamoine et al” hereinafter Lamoine) and US5,356,208 (Tadmor) as applied to claim 13 or 11 above, and further in view of CN210911088U (“Zhou et al” hereinafter Zhou), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the striations have a triangular cross section.
However, Zhou teaches wherein the striations have a triangular cross section (page 1, lines 48-49, the cross section of the flange of the thread is an acute triangle structure).
Lamoine and Zhou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of extrusion device for manufacturing a product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the modified apparatus of Lamoine such that it teaches all of the abovementioned limitations as taught by Zhou to increase the gap between the screw teeth and more material can be contained (page 1, lines 57-59). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Lamoine teaches the extrusion device (100) of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the gap defining the profile of the product defines a thickness of the product of less than 5 mm.
As the amount of viscous fluid contained within the gap and the plasticization time is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said diameter of the gap defining a profile of the product, with said amount of viscous fluid contained within the gap increasing as the diameter of the gap is increased, as evidenced by Zhou (page 1, lines 57-60), the precise diameter of said gap defining a profile of the product would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter of the gap defining a profile of the product cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the gap defining a profile of the product in the apparatus of the modified Lamoine to obtain desired amount of viscous fluid contained within the gap and the plasticization time. 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).
Furthermore, the Claims contain limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus. These limitations are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because they pertain to new limitations and have been rejected as stated above.
The Applicant argues Tadmor neither teaches that thread crests created by the continuous helix are tangential to crests of projecting threads on the vault nor that the thread crests created by the continuous helix and the crests of the projecting threads on the vault are substantially in contact with one another. There are no crests on the cylindrical barrel 10 (which the Examiner alleges equivalent with a vault) of Tadmor. Accordingly, there are no projecting threads on the alleged vault of Tadmor to teach one skilled in the art that crests of the projecting threads on the alleged vault would be constructed such that they are substantially in contact with the flights (i.e., the alleged crests) in Tadmor.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. The Examiner is relied upon the teaching Lamoine to discloses the presence of projecting thread on the vault (Figure 1, thread 68 on vault 6). Lamoine discloses the crests of projecting threads on the vault formed parallel to the length of the roller (Figure 1). Tadmor discloses helical threads 71-74 (Figure 1) formed along the outer surface of the screw 32. Tadmor further discloses the helical threads are substantially in contact with the barrel (Figure 1 and Col. 4, lines 29-40), which is equivalent to the vault. Thus, Lamoine in view of Tadmor discloses wherein thread crests created by the continuous helix are tangential to crests of projecting threads on the vault (Figure 1 of Lamoine discloses the projecting thread on the vault formed parallel to the length of the roller and Figure 1 of Tadmor discloses helical threads 71-74 formed along the outer surface of the screw 32. Thus, the projecting thread and the helical threads are tangential to each other). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights