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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Moriyama (U.S. Patent 4,764,020).
Regarding claim 1, Moriyama (U.S. Patent 4,764,020) teaches a feeding screw machine for feeding a processing screw machine (Shown in figures 1 and 2) having a housing (items 1 and 21 are considered forming the housing), at least two housing bores formed in the housing and penetrating each other (opening in item 1 and opening in 21 for screws, the space in item 1 penetrates into the space of item 21), a supply opening formed in the housing for supplying material into the at least two housing bores (see figure 2 intake part item 2), a feeding opening formed in the housing for feeding the material to a processing screw machine (opening proximate item 3 feeding material from item 1 into item 21), at least two screw shafts rotatably arranged in the at least two housing bores for conveying the material in a conveying direction from the supply opening to the feed opening (items 4, 5 and 23 are considered reading on screw shafts and are housed in the two bores of the housing formed by items 1 and 21), wherein the at least two housing bores and the at least two screw shafts in a respective cross-sectional plane E(x) define a free volume V(x) = A(x)•H(x) (shape of the volume in items 1 and 21), wherein A(x) describes a free cross-sectional area in the cross-sectional plane (E(x)) (area item 1), H(x) describes a pitch of the screw shafts on a basis of an inclination of (S(x)) in the cross-sectional plane (E(x)), and x describes a conveying point in the conveying direction (screw shafts 4 and 5 have an inclined orientation based on a plane extending from the top to the bottom of items 4 and 5, a conveying point being a point in between items 4 and 5 at the end of the screws feeding into item 21) and wherein for continuous compression of the material, the free volume decreases monotonically in the conveying direction at least in some regions (the volume inside item 1 decreases as material is compressed and conveyed into item 21).
Regarding claim 3, Moriyama teaches wherein the screw outer diameter (Da(x)) of the at least two screw shafts decrease at least regionally in the conveying direction (items 4 and 5 have screw threads 15 and 16, respectively which decrease as they feed material into item 21).
Regarding claim 5, Moriyama teaches wherein a housing bore diameter (DG(x)) of the at least two housing bores decrease at least regionally in the conveying direction (inner volume of item 1 is considered reading on a bore and decreases in the direction in which material is conveyed by items 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Moriyama teaches an axis of rotation associated with the at least screw shafts (each of items 4, 5, and 23 all have an axis of rotation) and the angle of rotation is considered intended use of the screws.
Regarding claim 9, Moriyama teaches wherein the housing comprises at least two housing portions (item 1 is considered a first portion, item 21 is considered a second portion).
Regarding claim 12, Moriyama teaches wherein at least one discharge opening is formed in the housing (opening proximate mold item 22).
Regarding claim 13, Moriyama teaches a processing installation having a processing screw machine for processing material (item 23) and a feeding screw machine according to claim 1 for feeding the material to the processing screw machine (items 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, Moriyama teaches a method for operating a processing installation (column 1 lines 7-10, and figures 1 and 2 which are considered showing a processing installation), comprising the following steps: providing a processing installation (item 21 is considered reading on a processing installation), supplying material through a supply opening into the at least two housing bores of the feeding screw machine (opening proximate item 3, bores are considered the opening in items 1 and 21 that house the screws), conveying the material in a conveying direction to a feeding opening and continuously compressing the material at least regionally while conveying (material is conveyed and compressed by the shape of item 1 and by rotors 4 and 5), and feeding the compressed material to a processing screw machine (material is fed to the opening proximate item 3 by items 4 and 5).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama (U.S. Patent 4,764,020).
Regarding claim 2, Moriyama teaches wherein a second plane downstream of a first plane in which there is a smaller cross-sectional area in the at a first point upstream compared to a cross-sectional area at a second point downstream of the first point. Regarding claim 2, Regarding claim 2, Moriyama is silent to the specific size relationship. Regarding claim 2, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the tapering in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 4, Moriyama teaches a tapering conical configuration for the two screw shafts (see items 4 and 3 which tapers with a conical shape as they extend into item 21). Regarding claim 4, Moriyama is silent to the degree of tapering. Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the tapering in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Moriyama teaches two screw shafts defining a cross-sectional plane, an outer screw diameter (each of items 4 and 5 have a screw thread which defines an outer diameter) and an inner screw diameter (the inner diameter of items 4 and 5 are the portions without screw threads). Regarding claim 7, Moriyama is silent to the specific size of the screws. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the screws in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, Moriyama teaches two screw shafts (items 4 and 5) having a pitch and screw outer diameter (each of items 4 and 5 have threads defining a pitch and outer diameter). Regarding claim 8, Moriyama is silent to the specific size of the screws. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the screws in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Moriyama teaches screw shafts each having a shaft and thread (items 4 and 5 are considered the shafts, their screw threads 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 14, Moriyama teaches wherein the processing screw machine has one treatment element shaft with an outer diameter (item 23 has a thread defining an outer diameter), two feeding screw shafts with an outer diameter at various points across the length of the shaft (screw threads on items 4 and 5 are defining an outer diameter). Regarding claim 14, Moriyama is silent to the specific size of the screws. Regarding claim 14, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the screws in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 15, Moriyama teaches wherein the processing screw machine has at least one treatment element shaft (item 23 has a screw thread which is considered reading on a treatment element) with an outer diameter (the screw thread of item 23 is considered comprising an outer diameter) and at least two screw shafts having an outer diameter at a conveying point (items 4 and 5 have outer diameters proximate items 15 and 16). Regarding claim 15, Moriyama is silent to the specific size of the screws. Regarding claim 15, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to change the size of the screws in order to obtain the desired flow rate and agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriyama (U.S. Patent 4,764,020) in view of Shimizu (U.S. Publication 2015/0001045).
Moriyama is silent to the language of claim 11. Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches at least one degassing device (paragraph 25 teaches gas vent ports 20 which are considered reading on a degassing device). Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the housing of Moriyama with the gas vent ports of Shimizu in order to obtain the desired mixed product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights