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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 11 and 14 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:
In claim 3, recitation of “the gap…” is confusing because independent claim 1 provides antecedent basis for a gap yet claim 3 seems to be referring to a different gap for which there is no antecedent basis.
In claim 11, the phrase “said discharge opening said rubbing and drying chamber” is unclear.
In claim 14, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the motor means of said extraction screw”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. In a preliminary amendment to claim 4, applicant changed the meaning of the claim in a manner that introduces new matter. The original claim presented two alternatives: a degassing chimney or an opening for additives. This was amended to instead require the chimney being in communication with either the gap or an opening for additives. This new concept of the chimney being in communication with an opening for additives was not described in the application as filed. (Note that applicant cannot add new matter after the international filing date.) Dependent claim 5 falls with parent claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dairoku (US 6,071,976) plant comprising an infeed stage (4) for feeding in material; a processing stage (2,6) for processing the material that has been fed by said infeed stage, and an extraction stage (5) for extracting the material processed in said processing stage, wherein said processing stage comprises a chamber (2, 6), said chamber comprising a tubular body (2) extending in a prevailing axial direction and having a continuous side wall extending between opposite closed ends (see Fig. 1); a roller rotor (6) comprising a continuous side wall axially extending in said axial direction between opposite closed ends (see Fig. 1), said roller rotor axially extending in said tubular body and being supported in said tubular body (see Fig. 1) to rotate about its own axis, wherein said side wall of said roller rotor is spaced apart from said side wall of the tubular body to define an annular gap (see Figs. 1 and 2) in chamber for receiving the material; motor means (8) for driving said roller rotor to rotate about its own axis inside said chamber; a loading opening (the opening in “2” that joins “3”) and a discharge opening (the opening in “2” that joins “5”) for the material, said loading and unloading openings of said chamber being axially offset from each other in said axial direction (see Fig. 1) and being in fluid communication with each other via said annular gap, so that a processing path is defined inside said chamber between said loading opening and said discharge opening (see Fig. 1), for the plastic material, wherein said roller rotor comprises a plurality of single discontinuous projections (7b and/or 7a) projecting out of said continuous side wall of the roller rotor toward the inner side of said continuous side wall of said tubular body (see Figs. 1 and 2b), without contacting said continuous side wall of said tubular body (see Figs. 1 and 2b), wherein said single discontinuous projections are single elements which are axially and angularly offset from each other (see Fig. 1) , to hit individually on the material in said gap.
Regarding claim 2, said loading opening and said discharge opening of said chamber are positioned at axially distal portions of said continuous side wall (6a) of said tubular body (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, said roller rotor at the outer side of said opposite ends comprises a plurality of segments (7a) radially projecting from a central portion of each end toward a peripheral edge of each end following an inclined/curved path, to thereby cause ejection of any material in the gap, defined between the ends of the roller rotor and the corresponding closed end ends of the tubular body, as said roller rotor rotates.
Regarding claim 4, a chimney (4) in communication with said gap is disclosed.
Regarding claim 6, the chamber comprises heating means (see col. 34, line 67).
Regarding claim 11, said extraction stage of the material processed in said processing stage is associated with said discharge opening said chamber (see Fig. 1).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dairoku (US 6,071,976) in view of Skidmore (US 3,917,507). The plant of Dairoku was discussed above. A chimney having a screw and a motor to drive the screw are not disclosed. Skidmore teaches providing a degassing chimney (30) having a screw (32) and a motor to drive the screw (see col. 4, lines 44-52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have provided a chimney having a screw and motor to rotate the screw to, as explained in col. 4, lines 44-52 of Skidmore, allow vapor to exit while pushing solids back to the chamber.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dairoku (US 6,071,976) in view of Farkas (US 6,447,158). The plant of Dairoku was discussed above. The tubular body having a polygonal cross section is not disclosed. Farkas teaches that a tubular body having a polygonal cross section is an alternative to a circular crossed section (see col. 4, lines 11-15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized a polygonal cross section because Farkas constitutes evidence of the recognition in the art that polygon cross sections are an alternative to circular cross sections.
Claims 8, 9, 12-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dairoku (US 6,071,976) in view of Wittrock (US 3,782,700). The plant of Dairoku was discussed above:
Regarding claim 8, Dairoku does not disclose that the intake stage comprises a feeding screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor. Wittrock teaches an intake stage comprising a feeding screw (2) in a holding chamber (22) and driven by a motor (18). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a feeding screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor as taught by Wittrock to assist in advancing material to the processing stage.
Regarding claim 9, the feed screw and holder chamber of Wittrock are tapered to converge towards the processing chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Dairoku does not disclose that the extraction stage comprises an extraction screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor. Wittrock teaches an extraction stage comprising an extraction screw (10) in a holding chamber (9) and driven by a motor (19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an extraction screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor as taught by Wittrock to assist in advancing material from the processing stage.
Regarding claim 13, Wittrock further teaches heating means (see col. 1, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 14, Wittrock further teaches three control means for control the motor speed for of the three motors (see col. 5, lines 25-30) and feedback control is disclosed or suggested in col. 4, lines 27-30.
Regarding claim 16, Dairoku does not disclose an extruder line downstream of the extraction stage. Wittrock teaches an extruder line (21) down stream of the extraction stage. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided an extrusion line downstream of the extraction stage, to create a shaped article as explained in col. 5, line 36 of Wittrock.
Regarding claim 17, Dairoku does not disclose an extractor having two parallel and counter-rotating powered rollers, located at the outlet of said extraction stage. Wittrock teaches two parallel and counter-rotating powered rollers (10,11) located at the outlet of said extraction stage. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided two parallel and counter-rotating powered rollers, located at the outlet of said extraction stage as taught by Wittrock, to assist in advancing the material further downstream.
Claims 8, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dairoku (US 6,071,976) in view of EP 3 412 422 (to an anonymous inventor). The plant of Dairoku was discussed above:
Regarding claim 8, Dairoku does not disclose that the intake stage comprises a feeding screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor. EP 3 412 422 teaches an intake stage comprising a feeding screw (117) in a holding chamber (113) and driven by a motor (111). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a feeding screw in a holding chamber and driven by motor as taught by EP 3 412 422 to assist in advancing material to the processing stage.
Regarding claim 10, in the teachings of EP 3 412 422 the walls of said holding chamber have drainage openings (1131).
Regarding claim 15, Dairoku does not disclose a grinder. EP 3 412 422 teaches a grinder (1111) downstream of an extraction stage. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided a grinder downstream of an extraction stage as taught by EP 3 412 422 to prepare material for a further stage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L SORKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1148. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Claire X Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID L. SORKIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/DAVID L SORKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774