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 1.114
A 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 08/05/2026:
Claims 1-12 and 23 are pending.
Claims 13-22 are cancelled.
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 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) 1, 2, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Hinrichs et al. (EP2782441- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 1, Hinrichs teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 3) comprising:
an extruder (single-screw extruder 1a; Figure 3) including a nozzle (nozzle 24)
for extruding multiple individual products ([0040] to form the material strand which exits after the stretching section 22 and forms the Mozzarella end product; the extruder extruded an end product and can produce multiple products through the extruder assembly subsequently such that the extruder is capable of extruding multiple individual products in a subsequent manner); and
a stand (holder H1 on horizontal base U in Figure 3) for supporting the extruder, the
stand having only one point of adjustment using a height adjuster adapted to linearly raise and to linearly lower the nozzle by rotating the stand about a pivot ([0039] the holder H 1 is additionally provided with an adjusting device V by means of which the inclination of the single-screw extruder 1a relative to the horizontal can be varied. The adjusting device V is designed as a pivoting mechanism, as can be seen from the drawing, and is manually adjustable. It is also possible to associate an actuating drive with the adjusting device in order to enable a motor-driven adjustment of the inclination of the single-screw extruder 1a to the horizontal) to change the weight of the extruded material ([0041] Depending on the adjusted inclination of the single screw extruder 1a relative to the horizontal, the liquid level of the process liquid located in the cylinder space of the extruder cylinder 2a can be controlled by means of the overflow device 2) during production (the adjusting device V does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of adjusting the extruder inclination relative to horizontal surface U during extrusion. Examiner notes that Hinrichs teaches all the structural limitations such that the extruder assembly would be capable of changing the weight of the individual products as the nozzle height is adjusted. See MPEP 2114.II. which discusses how the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art).
Regarding claim 2, Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height
adjuster is a manual height adjuster ([0039] The adjusting device V is designed as a pivoting
mechanism, as can be seen from the drawing, and is manually adjustable).
Regarding claim 6, Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height
adjuster is a motorized height adjuster ([0039] It is also possible to associate an actuating drive
with the adjusting device in order to enable a motor-driven adjustment of the inclination of the
single-screw extruder 1a to the horizontal).
Regarding claim 7, Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the stand
includes a top rotatable portion and a bottom stationary portion (see annotated Figure 3 on pg.
8 of the Office Action mailed 03/25/2025).
Regarding claim 8, Hinrichs teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the stand
has opposite ends, the pivot is on one of the opposite ends and the height adjuster is on the
other of the opposite ends (see height adjuster V at one opposite end annotated Figure 3
on pg. 5 of the Office Action mailed 02/12/2026).
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inaba (JPS6317016A- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 2) comprising:
an extruder (injection unit 1; Figure 2) including a nozzle (nozzle 8; Figure 2) for extruding multiple individual products (the injection unit extrudes material into an injection molding device and can produce multiple parts in the injection molding device subsequently such that the extruder is capable of extruding multiple individual products in a subsequent manner); and
a stand (see annotated Figure 2 below) for supporting the extruder, the stand having only one point of adjustment (see annotated Figure 2 below) using a height adjuster (jack bolt 9; Figure 2) adapted to linearly raise and to linearly lower the nozzle by rotating the stand about a pivot (see annotated Figure 2 below and “If a jack bolt is rotated, the link connected with the lower part will rotate a pivotally supporting pivotally point up and down as a center, Since the front part roller at the tip of a link moves up and down relatively to the field of a rail, the whole ejection unit inclines slightly with a base, and centering control of the nozzle of a unit tip part is carried out up and down a center”- see pg. 2) to change the weight of the individual products while the extruder is operating (the adjusting device does not interfere with the extruder operation and would therefore be capable of adjusting the extruder inclination relative to horizontal surface during extrusion; Further, Examiner notes that Inaba teaches all the structural limitations such that the extruder assembly would be capable of changing the weight of the individual products as the nozzle height is adjusted. See MPEP 2114.II. which discusses how the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Inaba teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height adjuster is a manual height adjuster (“If a jack bolt is rotated, the link connected with the lower part will rotate a pivotally supporting pivotally point up and down as a center, Since the front part roller at the tip of a link moves up and down relatively to the field of a rail, the whole ejection unit inclines slightly with a base, and centering control of the nozzle of a unit tip part is carried out up and down a center”- see pg. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Inaba teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1 wherein the height adjuster is a vernier height adjuster (“If a jack bolt is rotated, the link connected with the lower part will rotate a pivotally supporting pivotally point up and down as a center, Since the front part roller at the tip of a link moves up and down relatively to the field of a rail, the whole ejection unit inclines slightly with a base, and centering control of the nozzle of a unit tip part is carried out up and down a center”- see pg.; a screw-jack is to be interpreted as a type of Vernier adjustment, as Applicant’s instant specification recites in [0021] “providing a vernier adjustment such as a jack screw 28”).
Regarding claim 4, Inaba teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1, wherein the height adjuster is a jack screw (“If a jack bolt is rotated, the link connected with the lower part will rotate a pivotally supporting pivotally point up and down as a center, Since the front part roller at the tip of a link moves up and down relatively to the field of a rail, the whole ejection unit inclines slightly with a base, and centering control of the nozzle of a unit tip part is carried out up and down a center”- see pg. 2).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba (JPS6317016A- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Bradshaw (GB2060468A).
Regarding claim 5, Inaba teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. While Inaba teaches the height adjuster is a jack screw, Inaba fails to teach wherein the height adjuster includes a manually operated hand wheel.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to height adjustable extruders, Bradshaw teaches a height adjuster is a jack screw and includes a manually operated hand wheel to operate the jack screw (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown)”- see pg. 1 line 108-11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the jack screw of Inaba be manually operated by a hand wheel, as Bradshaw teaches a hand wheel is used to operate a jack screw in adjusting an extruder height, to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the extruder height. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the jack screw of Inaba to be operated by a hand wheel, since both Inaba and Bradshaw are directed to adjusting an extruder height through jack screws, and Bradshaw teaches the jack screw is operated by a hand wheel.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US3600755A), and further in view of Bradshaw (GB2060468A).
Regarding claim 1, Cook teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 1) comprising:
an extruder including a nozzle for extruding multiple individual products (col 1 line 11-24; as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the injection unit extrudes material into an injection molding device and can produce multiple parts in the injection molding device subsequently such that the extruder is capable of extruding multiple individual products in a subsequent manner); and
a stand (frame 10, frame-based trunnion means 31, and support 22; Figure 1) for supporting the extruder (col 2 line 10-14), the stand using a height adjuster (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3) adapted to linearly raise and to linearly lower the nozzle (Figure 2 and Figure 3) by rotating the stand about a pivot (pivoted connection of support 22 at 30; Figure 1) to change the weight of the individual products while the extruder is operating (Examiner notes that Cook teaches all the structural limitations such that the extruder assembly would be capable of changing the weight of the individual products as the nozzle height is adjusted. See MPEP 2114.II. which discusses how the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art).
However, Cook teaches two points of adjustment (see two jackscrews 32 in Figure 4) and fails to teach the stand having only one point of adjustment.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to height adjustable extruders, Bradshaw teaches a stand having two points of adjustment that could be modified to have only one point of adjustment if the jackscrews are interconnected by sprockets and a chain (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown) or for instance by a single handle if the screw-jacks are interconnected by for instance sprockets and a chain”- see pg. 1 line 108-114).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the jack screws of Cook be adjusted by only one point of adjustment, as taught by Bradshaw, to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the nozzle height. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the jack screws of Cook to be adjusted by only one point of adjustment, since Bradshaw teaches only one point of adjustment as an alternative to two points of adjustment for rotating the jackscrews that adjust the nozzle height.
Regarding claim 2, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. Further, Cook teaches wherein the height adjuster is a manual height adjuster (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. Further, Cook teaches wherein the height adjuster is a vernier height adjuster (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. Further, Cook teaches wherein the height adjuster is a jack screw (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. Further, Cook teaches wherein the stand includes a first stationary portion (frame 10 and frame-based trunnion means 31; Figure 1) and a second rotatable portion (support 22; Figure 1 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 1. Further, Cook teaches wherein the stand has a second pivot about which the stand rotates (col 2 line 62-69; Cook teaches multiple frame-based trunnion means where each frame-based trunnion means includes a pivot such that at least two pivots for rotating the upper portion of the stand are taught).
Regarding claim 10, Cook teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 1) for producing individual extruded products (col 1 line 11-24; as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the injection unit extrudes material into an injection molding device and can produce multiple parts in the injection molding device subsequently such that the extruder is capable of extruding multiple individual products in a subsequent manner. Further, the claim is directed to an apparatus, and that extruding individual cheese products are considered materials worked upon by the system and, therefore, do not impart patentability to the claims as discussed in MPEP 2115. Also see MPEP 2114.II. which discusses how the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art) comprising:
an extruder (injection mechanism 12; Figure 1) including a nozzle (nozzle 18; Figure 1) adapted to extrude multiple individual products (as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, the injection unit extrudes material into an injection molding device and can produce multiple parts in the injection molding device subsequently such that the extruder is capable of extruding multiple individual products in a subsequent manner); and
a stand (frame 10, frame-based trunnion means 31, and support 22; Figure 1) for supporting the extruder (col 2 line 10-14), the stand having at least only one pivot axis (pivoted connection of support 22 at 30; Figure 1) and having a height adjuster (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3) adapted to linearly raise and to linearly lower the nozzle by rotating the stand about the pivot axis (see Figure 2 and Figure 3),
wherein the height adjuster is a vernier adjustment height adjuster to enable the raising and the lowering of the nozzle (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3) to change a weight of the individual products within a target range (Cook teaches the structural limitations that would make the extruder assembly adjust the nozzle height such that a weight of the individual products are changed within a target range. Further, see MPEP 2114.II. which discusses how the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art).
While Cook teaches the height adjuster is a jack screw, Cook fails to teach wherein the height adjuster has a manually operated hand wheel turned by a user during operation of the extruder.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to height adjustable extruders, Bradshaw teaches a height adjuster has a manually operated hand wheel turned by a user during operation of the extruder (“The height-adjusting mechanisms 20 can be of any suitable type, and are shown as having two screw-jacks which can be turned by two handwheels 22 (as shown)”- see pg. 1 line 108-111).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the jack screw of Cook be manually operated by a hand wheel, as Bradshaw teaches a hand wheel is used to operate a jack screw in adjusting an extruder height, to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the extruder height. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the jack screw of Inaba to be operated by a hand wheel, since both Cook and Bradshaw are directed to adjusting an extruder height through jack screws, and Bradshaw teaches the jack screw is operated by a hand wheel.
Regarding claim 11, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 10.
Further, Cook teaches wherein the height adjuster is a jack screw (jack screws 32; Figure 1 to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Cook modified with Bradshaw teaches the extruder assembly of claim 10 .
Further, Cook teaches wherein the stand includes a first stationary portion (frame 10 and frame-based trunnion means 31; Figure 1) and a second rotatable portion (support 22; Figure 1 to Figure 3) and includes two pivots for rotating the upper portion of the stand (col 2 line 62-69; Cook teaches multiple frame-based trunnion means where each frame-based trunnion means includes a pivot such that at least two pivots for rotating the upper portion of the stand are taught).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Abler (US5988052), Marino (US20030232103) and Kraus (US4759704A).
Regarding claim 23, Abler teaches an extruder assembly comprising:
an extruder (cooking chamber 17 and intermediate tube 20; Figure 2) including a nozzle (spout 22; Figure 2) for extruding individual products (col 3 line 15-17);
a scale adjacent the nozzle for measuring a specific weight of at least one of the individual products (col 3 line 24-32);
a stand for supporting the extruder (see frame under hopper 18 and cooking chamber 17 in Figure 2); and
a controller (controller 50; Figure 3) in communication with the scale, the controller receiving the specific weight from the scale (col 3 line 62- col 4 line 3) and sending a signal to maintain the weight of the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder (col 4 line 38-49).
However, Abler fails to teach the stand having a height adjuster adapted to adjust the height of the nozzle so as to change the weight of the individual products to a target range while the extruder is operating and the controller being in communication with the height adjuster such that a signal is sent to the height adjuster to linearly change the height of the nozzle to maintain the weight of the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder.
Marino teaches an extruder assembly comprising:
an extruder (extruder 22; Figure 2) including a nozzle (extrusion die 38; Figure 2) for extruding individual products;
a scale adjacent the nozzle for measuring a specific weight of at least one of the individual products ([0024] Weight check conveyor 42 measures either the weight or height of pucks 30 as they are produced and provides feedback to the controller of motor 32 to increase or decrease the speed of the augers as necessary to ensure pucks of consistent weight or size);
a stand for supporting the extruder (see Figure 4A); and
a controller in communication with the scale and the controller receiving the specific weight from the scale and sending a signal nozzle to maintain the weight of the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder ([0024] Weight check conveyor 42 measures either the weight or height of pucks 30 as they are produced and provides feedback to the controller of motor 32 to increase or decrease the speed of the augers as necessary to ensure pucks of consistent weight or size).
However, Marino changes the auger speed to ensure a consistent weight ([0024] and provides feedback to the controller of motor 32 to increase or decrease the speed of the augers as necessary to ensure pucks of consistent weight or size) rather than linearly adjusting a nozzle height to maintain the weight of the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder.
Kraus teaches an extruder assembly (Figure 1) comprising:
an extruder (vats 1 in Figure 1) including a nozzle (see nozzle where cheese 4 is being extruded in Figure 1) for extruding individual products (cheese 4; Figure 1);
a scale (trip lever 5; Figure 1) adjacent the nozzle for measuring a specific weight of at least one of the individual products (col 2 line 43-46).
However, Kraus teaches the scale attached to a counterweight pivots until a rod attached to the scale is displaced, which causes the product to be cut (col 2 line 51-63). It is the height of the scale that is adjusted to achieve a specific weight of the product rather than the nozzle that is adjusted in height to change the weight of the product.
Further, Kraus fails to teach a controller in communication with the scale and in communication with the height adjuster of the scale, the controller receiving the specific weight from the scale and sending a signal to the height adjuster of the scale to linearly change the height of the nozzle to maintain the weight of the individual products within the target range during operation of the extruder.
Therefore, Abler, Marino, and Kraus either alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 23.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradshaw (GB20600468A) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Hinrichs fails to teach the nozzle extruding multiple individual products, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The extruder assembly of Hinrichs is capable of extruding multiple individual products, as noted in the 102(a)(1) and 103 rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that the limitation of a nozzle extruding multiple individual products does not require multiple nozzles simultaneously extruding multiple individual products simultaneously, and does not preclude the limitation from being interpreted as individual products that are subsequently extruded from a nozzle such that a nozzle extrudes multiple individual products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
