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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tension means” in claim10 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Upon review of the specification the applicant discloses the “tension means” have specific structure like, screw, tension bolts or rods.
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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Applicant argues that prior art, Tsutsumi discloses a filter element 100 clamped between a front nozzle-side structural component and a rear structural component of a plasticizing screw -3. Thus, Tsutsumi does not disclose a plasticizing unit comprising an injection barrel which has a front nozzle- side structural component and a rear structural component, as required by claim 9.
Examiner maintains the rejection as Tsutsumi discloses injection barrel-2 houses plasticizing screw-3 and inject the material into the mold (Figure 10B, Col 9 line 35-37). The injection cylinder moves the screw-3 forward to inject plastic at certain pressure and speed. Also, Tsutsumi discloses that the barrel-2 include the screw-3 (col 8 line 30-34), with front nozzle side structural component-3a and a rear structural component of the plasticizing screw plunger-3, therefore the amended claim limitation is met.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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) 9, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (US 5246660) listed in IDS.
Regarding Claim 9, Tsutsumi discloses a plasticizing unit for a molding machine, with the plasticizing unit comprising an injection barrel, and a plasticizing screw arranged in the injection barrel wherein the injection barrel has includes: a front nozzle-side structural component; and a rear structural component (Figure 10B, nozzle-3a, and rear component of the screw plunger-3, -barrel 2; Tsutsumi it discloses barrel-2 which is a cylindrical housing that surrounds the rotating plasticizing screw and inject the material into the mold ; Tsutsumi also discloses that the barrel-2 include the screw-3 (col 8 line 30-34 ); and a filter device for filtering plasticized material, material arranged between the front nozzle-side structural component and the rear structural component (Figure 10A-B, filter-100,Col 20 line 49-53). Tsutsumi didn’t particularly disclose that the injection barrel has a front nozzle- side structural component and a rear structural component; however the barrel-2 houses the screw-3 which forward to inject plastic at certain pressure and speed therefore it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to comprehend that the injection barrel would include the front and the rear structural components part of the plasticating screw.
Regarding Claim 10, Tsutsumi, wherein the front nozzle sided structural componentinjection barrel and transverse to the connection point between the front nozzle sided structural component and rear structural component (Col 20, line 47-53, bolt extension-140 in the front section and bolt extension-150 at the back section).
Regarding Claim 11, Tsutsami discloses wherein the filter device is braced directly with the front nozzle sided structural component and the rear structural component
Regarding claim 20, Tsutsami discloses molding machine, plasticizing unit according to claim 9 (as discussed above in Claim 9).
Claims 15-16,19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi, US 5246660 listed in IDS as applied in Claim 9 further in view of EP’0735267 hereinafter EP’267 translation attached .
Regarding Claim 15, Tsutsumi disclose a filtration apparatus used to filter molten polymer with a plasticizing unit but didn’t specifically disclose the front nozzle side structural component or the rear structural component has a connection element. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, EP’267 discloses ([0013], [0016], flange-4 fastening the nozzle-2 and the cylinder-3 by screw bolts-5)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Tsutsumi filtration apparatus with plasticizing unit with that of the teaching of flange by EP’267 for the purpose of strengthening the alignment of the front structural component and/or the rear structural component.
Regarding Claim 16, EP’267 disclose wherein the front nozzle side structural component or the rear structural component are connected by means of at least one clamping ([0007], translated),
Regarding claim 19, EP’267 discloses the plasticizing unit according, wherein the bracing of the front nozzle side structural component
Regarding Claim 29, EP’267 disclose wherein the connection element is a flange point or a clamping flange (flange-4 fastening the nozzle-2 and the cylinder-3 by screw bolts-5 ).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi, US 5246660 listed in IDS as applied in Claim 9 further in view of Halter, US 20170368730,
Regarding Claim 17, Tsutsami discloses a filtration apparatus used to filter molten polymer with a plasticizing unit did not disclose that the filter device is arranged in a, preferably pipe-shaped, filter component of the injection barrel which filter component represents a component of the injection barrel that is separate from the front structural component and the rear structural component and together with the front structural component and the rear structural component forms the injection barrel. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Halter discloses the filter device is arranged in , filter component of the injection cylinder which filter component represents a component of the injection cylinder that is separate from the front nozzle side structural component and the rear structural component and together with the front nozzle side structural component and the rear structural component forms the injection cylinder ( [0039] filter component -16 separate from the front structural component i.e. the nozzle and the rear structural component i.e the barrel-2 ).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Tsutsami filtration apparatus with plasticizing unit with that of Halter’s teaching of filter component for additional path of the melt to flow outside the filter for removal of contaminants ([0032], [0033]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi, US 5246660 listed in IDS as applied in Claim 9 further in view of Halter, US 20170368730 and further in view of EP’0735267 hereinafter EP’267.
Regarding Claim 18, Tsutsami disclose a filtration apparatus used to filter molten polymer with a plasticizing unit did not disclose that the front structural component is braced with the separate clamping component and the separate structural component is braced with the rear structural component. In the related field of endeavor , Halter discloses the filter component ( [0039] filter component -16 separate from the front structural component i.e. the nozzle and the rear structural component i.e the barrel-1).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Tsutsumi filtration apparatus with plasticizing unit with that of Halter’s teaching of filter component for additional path of the melt to flow outside the filter for removal of contaminants ([0032], [0033]).
Further, EP’267 discloses wherein a separate clamping component -, the front structural component is braced with the separate clamping component (EU’ 0735267 , translated, [0015], separate clamping element-11) and the separate structural component is braced with the rear structural component ([0017], structural component/cover-14 with the barrel head-3). Therefore, combining Halter and EP’267 the recited limitation can be met.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Tsutsumi filtration apparatus with plasticizing unit with that of the teaching of separate clamping/structural element by EP’267 for the purpose of tightly fitting the nozzle with the cylinder (EP’267, [0015]).
Claim(s) 21-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi, US 5246660 listed in IDS as applied in Claim 9 in view of Trakas (US 20120111426) listed in IDS, further in view of Teng US 20080210720.
Regarding Claim 21, Tsutsumi discloses a plasticizing unit for a molding machine, with the plasticizing unit comprising an injection cylinder but did not disclose that wherein the filter device includes at least one filter element for filtering the plasticized material, wherein, in a fluidically parallel arrangement relative to the at least one filter element, at least one valve element is provided. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Trakas discloses a filter device for a molding machine with at least one filter element, in a fluidically parallel arrangement relative to the at least one filter element (Figure 1B, filter device-100, filter element-114 [0032], [0033]) , at least one valve element
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Tsutsami with that of the plasticizing unit taught by Trakas for the purpose of using the valve to regulate the flow of the polymer during the injection process.
Trakas did disclose that the filter check vlave-104 is closed position (Figure 1B, [0033]); but didn’t particularly disclose that the valve is non return valve which is formed -to prevent the plasticized material from flowing through the at least one valve element([0063]) of the melt and therefore, Trakas/Teng combined with meet the limitation that in a closed position it would prevent the plasticized material from flowing through the at least one valve element.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Trakas’s teaching of the filter device with the non-return valve of Teng for the purpose of good seal during the closed position during the injection process.
Regarding Claim 22, Teng discloses wherein the at least one valve element
Regarding Claim 23, Trakas discloses wherein the at least one filter elemen
Regarding Claim 24 Trakas discloses wherein the at least one filter element at least partially, surrounds (by definition : means which forms an edging around an object) the at least one valve element preferably in a plane transverse to a flow direction of the plasticized material (Figure 1b).
Regarding Claim 25, Tsutsumi discloses a plasticizing unit ; wherein the plasticizing unit has an injection cylinder and a plasticizing screw rotationally and linearly movable in the injection barrel ( Figure 10A ,abstract, Col 4 line 26-36, Col 18 line 27-33; barrel-2, screw-3).
Regarding Claim 26, Tsutsumi discloses wherein the filter device
Regarding Claim 27, Tsutsumi discloses wherein the at least one filter device
Regarding Claim 30, Trakas discloses at least one filter element at least partially surrounds the at least one valve element in a plane transverse to a flow direction of the plasticized material (by definition : means which forms an edging around an object) the at least one valve element preferably in a plane transverse to a flow direction of the plasticized material , Figure 1b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 28 are allowable.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art references of Tsutsami did not disclose that one expansion element which
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743