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 with traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 05/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the restriction mailed 03/17/2025, the inventions as claimed can have a different mode of operation and the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gneuss et al. (US20200282369), and further in view of Blach (US5429435).
Regarding claim 1, Gneuss teaches a support bearing element (multi screw section 20; Figure 3) for an extruder screw (extruder screw 100; Figure 2) for a multi-screw extruder (see multiscrew section 20 with a plurality of planetary screws 30 in Figure 2), the support bearing element comprising:
a cone (taper section 2; Figure 4);
a plurality of grooves (planetary screw bores 22; Figure 3) arranged on an outer periphery and are axially parallel to the axis of rotation of the support bearing element, each for receiving a satellite screw and a drive pinion connected thereto (see bearing receptacles 25 of a support bearing 24 receiving planetary screws 30 and pinion 33 in Figure 2 and [0039]).
While Gneuss fails to explicitly teach the support bearing element comprises at least one plain bearing provided in the groove in order to support the satellite screw next to the drive pinion thereof, the plain bearing being positioned or designed in a bearing holder formed on the support bearing element, Gneuss does teach a support bearing at the end of the support bearing element with ring-shaped bearing receptacles ([0051] The discharge-side tips of the planetary screws 30′ are mounted in ring-shaped bearing receptacles 25′ of the support bearing 24′), where the ends of the screws are mounted floating in the bearing receptables (see [0039]). Gneuss notes that floating screws in the plastic melt results in increased wear of the planetary screws and bearing (see [0004]), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art for bearing configurations that prevent floating screws.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to support bearing elements for an extruder screw, Blach teaches a support bearing element (see baffle plate 37 in Figure 8 and Figure 9) comprising at least one plane ring bearing (serrated ring bearings 40 in Figure 2; a plain bearing is interpreted as a bearing formed directly by the bearing shoulder on the satellite screw and the associated bearing recess, as described in [00012] of Applicant’s disclosure) provided in the groove in order to support the satellite screw next to the drive pinion thereof, the plain bearing being positioned in a bearing holder formed on the support bearing element (col 8 line 16-22). The bearing of Blach positioned in the bearing holder of the support bearing element ensures proper motional conditions relative to the bearing holder (col 8 line 19-21).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the support bearing element of Gneuss to comprise at least one plain bearing provided in the groove in order to support the satellite screw next to the drive pinion, the plain bearing being positioned in a bearing holder, as taught by Blach, for the benefit of ensuring proper motional conditions relative to the bearing holder that in turn avoids floating screws.
Regarding claim 4, Gneuss modified with Blach teaches the support bearing element according to claim 1.
Further, Blach teaches wherein at least one bore (bores 39; Figure 8 and Figure 9) is inserted on the outer periphery of the support bearing element (cylindrical baffle plate 37; Figure 8 and Figure 9) for each plain bearing (col 8 line 16-22), which extends into the bearing holder (see Figure 8 and Figure 9).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the support bearing element of Gneuss modified with Bach to comprise at least one bore on the outer periphery of the support bearing element for each plain bearing which extends into the bearing holder, as taught by Blach, for the benefit of ensuring proper motional conditions relative to the bearing holder that in turn avoids floating screws.
Regarding claim 5, Gneuss modified with Blach teaches the support bearing element according to claim 1.
Gneuss teaches an inlet opening on the cone and an outlet opening arranged in the direction of flow behind the position provided for the drive pinions (see annotated Figure 3 below). However, Gneuss fails to teach wherein, between at least two adjacent grooves, a flow channel is formed in the support bearing element
Further, Blach teaches wherein, between at least two adjacent grooves, a flow channel is formed in the support bearing element (see flow channels 41 in Figure 8 and Figure 9). The support bearing element with the flow channels ensures a regular controlled flow of material passing through the pinions and preventing material from being collected in areas between pinions of the central screw and planetary screws (col 8 line 54-61).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the support bearing element of Gneuss modified with Bach to comprise a flow channel between at least two adjacent grooves, as taught by Bach, such that the flow channel extends from the inlet opening to the outlet opening of Gneuss, for the benefit of ensuring a regular controlled flow of material passing through the pinions and preventing material from being collected in areas between pinions of the central screw and planetary screws.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are 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 Gneuss et al. (US20200282369) and Blach (US5429435).
Regarding claim 2, Gneuss modified with Blach teaches the support bearing element according to claim 1. However, Gneuss fails to teach wherein at least one plain bearing is positioned in a bearing insert element that is detachably inserted into the groove, and Blach teaches at least one plain bearing as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the at least one plain bearing is positioned in a bearing insert element that is detachably inserted into the groove.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is, therefore, allowed.
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.”
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
Prosecution Insights