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 .
This Final Rejection is in response to the Applicant’s claim amendment received on 11/24/2025, in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 10/06/2025.
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(s) 1 – 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (DE 202006 018 456 U1).
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches an extrusion device comprising: a cylinder; a raw material feed port configured to supply raw materials including resin into the cylinder; a screw that is incorporated in the cylinder and kneads the raw materials, allowing the raw materials to be molten (see Fig 1, items 20- melt inlet opening receiving melt from extruder to a plurality of melt channels 40, 30 -melt distributor, 32, 100-plurality of individual adjustment element, 50-drive device, 41-associated nozzle and 70-sensor device); a die that is disposed at one end of the cylinder and includes a plurality of through-holes to eject strands made of molten resin supplied from the cylinder; and an adjustor that adjusts individually an ejection amount of the strand ejected from each of the plurality of through-holes (see Fig 2 showing 100-plurality of individual adjustable element; see claim 1).
As for claim 2, D1 further teaches wherein the adjustor includes a moving unit that is provided for each of the plurality of through-holes and is allowed to project into the corresponding through- hole, the ejection amount of the strand ejected from the through-hole per unit time is adjusted by changing an amount of projection of the moving unit into the corresponding through-hole and thereby adjusting a sectional area of the through-hole (Fig 1-2, item 50, 100).
As for claim 3, D1 further teaches wherein the moving unit includes a screw mechanism that changes the amount of projection into the corresponding through-hole by the moving units rotating (see Figs. 1-2 item 50-drive unit being any actuator including wrench/screw).
As for claim 4, D1 further teaches wherein the adjustor further includes a driving unit to drive the moving unit (Figs 1-2 item -50 drive unit to move 100).
As for claim 5, D1 further teaches wherein the driving unit is any of a pneumatic type, a hydraulic type, or an electric type (it is implicit that drive 50 is any of this type of moving).
As for claim 12, D1 shows an extrusion molding die comprising: a main body portion in which a flow-in port, a plurality of through-holes and a flow path portion are formed, kneaded molten resin being supplied to the flow-in port (Figs 1-2, items 20- melt inlet opening receiving melt from extruder to a plurality of melt channels 40, 30 -melt distributor, 32, 100-plurality of individual adjustment element, 50-drive device, 41-associated nozzle and 70-sensor device), strands of the supplied molten resin being ejected from the plurality of through-holes, the flow path portion extending in a flow path direction from the flow-in port to the plurality of through-holes; and an adjustor (100) that is able to adjust individually an ejection amount of the strand ejected from each of the plurality of through-holes (Fig 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 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 6 are 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (DE 202006 018 456 U1) in further view of JAPAN STEEL WORKS (JP H06234149 A).
Regarding claims 6 and 8-11, D1 teach all the limitation to the claim inventions as discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the adjustor includes a temperature adjustment unit that is provided for each of the plurality of through-holes and adjust temperature of the strand ejected from the corresponding through-hole.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to extrusion device, JAPAN STEEL WORKS teaches wherein the adjustment mechanism includes a temperature adjustment unit that is provided for each of the plurality of through-holes and adjusts temperature of the strand ejected from the corresponding through-hole (see [0017]- [0024]); a monitoring device that detects strand diameter of the strand ejected from the die; a control device that controls the adjustment mechanism on a basis of the strand diameter detected by the monitoring device; wherein the control device controls the adjustment mechanism to reduce variations in detected strand diameter (see Figs 1 and 8, cf. 41, 41A, 42; [0002], [0009], cf. “…maintain…stabilize”); wherein the control device calculates an average value of the detected strand diameters, and controls the adjustment mechanism such that a difference between each strand diameter and an average value falls within a predetermined range (derivable from Japan Steel works, as per [0003].. “maintain …stabilize…” since the control device of Japan steel works (cf. 42) is suitable for performing such evaluations).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified extruder device as taught by D1 with further including temperature adjustment unit and controls, as taught, JAPAN STEEL WORKS, for the benefit of efficiently producing strand with desired mechanical properties (see [0009]-[0011]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (DE 202006 018 456 U1) in further view of SEKISUI CHEMICAL CO (JP 2000318019 A).
Regarding claim 7, D1 teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the adjustment mechanism includes a tension adjustment unit to adjust tension acting on the strand ejected from the through-hole.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to extrusion device and extruding strand, SEKISUI CHEMICAL CO teach wherein the adjustment mechanism includes a tension adjustment unit to adjust tension acting on the strand ejected from the through-hole ([0050]; and claim 3). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to have modified the extrusion device taught by D1 with further including adjustment mechanism, as taught, SEKISUI CHEMICAL CO, for the benefit of adjusting tension acting on the strand, for further benefit of producing a strand with desired mechanical properties/strength/thickness ([0074]-[0076] discloses tensile strength in the strand produced).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant amended the claims to further define “adjustor” specifically instead of a set of tools “adjustment mechanism” to further clarify the claim interpreted under 112(f) previously. However, upon further review, claims are rejected under 102(a)(1) as provided above, since use of adjuster (100), as provided by D1, is known to change diameter of a hole where material flows, and similar concept applies to strand/filament forming process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0008032 A1; US 2010/0123262 A1; US 10, 500, 792 B2.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743