DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 07/13/2026, claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 11-12, and 15 are currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-11 are considered in this Office 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 § 103
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2006143802 A) in view of Tashiro (JP 2007022068 A) and Sato (US 5,589,203).
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches a thermal decomposition extruder (as shown in figs. 1, 2) that thermally decomposes a polymer (e.g., the crosslink cleavage treatment) ([0041-0043], fig. 1), the thermal decomposition extruder comprising:
a screw that carries, plasticizes, and thermally decomposes the polymer ([0044-0046]: the material supplying extruder 1 with a twin-screw extruder);
a cylinder where the screw is contained (id.: as shown in fig. 1); and
a hopper for injection of the polymer into the cylinder ([0042]: cross-linked polyethylene, which has been crushed into pellets, is fed into the material supply extruder 1 via the hopper 13; fig. 1), wherein
the hopper has an upper end closed ([0043]: a hopper 13 with a drug diffusion prevention box 21; fig. 1), and the hopper includes a sidewall (enclosure as shown in fig. 1), the [side]wall being provided with an emission hole (through a hole connected to a local exhaust fan 22 or a hole connected to a trap 16 via a valve 23) for emission of decomposition gas to outside of the hopper, the decomposition gas being produced during thermal decomposition of the polymer ([0042, 0043]; fig. 1; of note, here, the limitation “for emission of decomposition gas to outside of the hopper” is directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus, and the hopper having the emission hole is capable of performing the recited function, and thus, the limitation is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2114); moreover, the limitation “the decomposition gas being produced during thermal decomposition of the polymer” is directed to article or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), wherein
the cylinder ([0044-0046] and fig. 1) includes: a carrier portion that carries the polymer (at least right below the hopper 13), a plasticization portion that plasticizes the polymer (the position, downstream of the carrier portion but upstream of the decomposition portion, e.g., where the cross-linked polyethylene is pressurized to 1 MPa or more and densified in the material supply extruder 1), and a thermal decomposition portion that thermally decomposes the polymer to produce decomposition gas (the position, downstream of an injection position connected to heater 14, wherein the crosslinking “scission” reaction of the crosslinked polyethylene proceeds; of note, here, the limitation “the polymer to produce decomposition gas” is directed to article or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), and wherein
[while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled].
Goto does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., (A) the “side”wall is provided with an emission hole and (B) while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled, but Tashiro and Sato teach the limitation(s) as follows:
Regarding deficiency (A), Tashiro teaches an apparatus comprising: a screw (screw shaft 12) that carries, plasticizes; a cylinder (barrel 10) where the screw is contained; and a hopper (hopper 24) for injection of the polymer into the cylinder, wherein the hopper has an upper end closed (with a sealing lid 40), and the hopper includes a sidewall, the sidewall being provided with an emission hole (exhaust port 46) for emission of gas to outside of the hopper ([0047, 0059, 0062]; figs. 2, 3, 5).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0001], fig. 1-3; Tashiro: [0047]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the material supply hopper of Goto to have a known structure of the hopper, e.g., having an emission hole at an upper portion of the hopper enclosure in a vertically-extending sidewall, as taught by Tashiro in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of effectively removing a gaseous material therein or safely relieving pressure build-up within the material supply system while the hopper contains raw material supply at a bottom.
Regarding deficiency (B), Sato teaches a vacuum kneading and extruding method and apparatus (col. 1 lines 11-12; figs. 1-3). A cylinder 20 includes a first, a second, and a third cylinders 20a, 20b, and 20c for housing the screws 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively (col. 5 lines 35-64; fig. 2), and each of the first/second/third cylinders include cooling water passages (col. 5 lines 66-67; fig. 2).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0044-0046] and fig. 1; Sato: abstract, figs. 2-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the extruder of Goto to further have a known structure of cooling water passages as taught by Sato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of maintaining precise temperature control over the polymer melt so as to ensure high-quality, consistent output by preventing overheating or unwanted degradation of the polymer melt, controlling material viscosity, providing safe shutdown capability, or protecting downstream equipment from excessive heat.
Upon the modification, modified Goto still does not specifically disclose that while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled. However, the limitation is directed to the intended use (e.g., a manner of operation) of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114), and the extruder of modified Goto, including an individual cooling water passage in each section of the cylinder, is capable of performing the recited function in each portion of the cylinder in any steps during operation as needed. For example, the temperature(s) in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion would be controlled to be at a desired temperature range, in particular, the temperature of (excessively) heated polymer would be cooled by lowering/cooling the temperature in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion while the screw is at a standstill (i.e., not actively generating a decomposition gas) in order to prevent collecting an abnormally decomposed unwanted product, in order to control the amount/flow/collection rate of an injected gas agent, and/or in order to finish up the operation in a safely cooled state.
Regarding claim 2, modified Goto teaches thermal decomposition extruder according to claim 1, wherein the sidewall of the hopper is provided with an introduction hole for introduction of inert gas into the hopper along an inner wall surface of the sidewall of the hopper (Tashiro: [0059]: an inlet 44; figs. 2-3, 4).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0001], fig. 1-3; Tashiro: [0047]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the material supply hopper of Goto to have a known structure of the hopper, e.g., having an inlet for inert gas, as taught by Tashiro in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of protecting raw material supplied therein from the surrounding environment by blanketing or purging the inert gas.
Regarding claim 5, Goto teaches a thermal decomposition extruder (as shown in figs. 1, 2) that thermally decomposes a polymer (e.g., the crosslink cleavage treatment) ([0041-0043], fig. 1), the thermal decomposition extruder comprising:
a screw that carries, plasticizes, and thermally decomposes the polymer ([0044-0046]: the material supplying extruder 1 with a twin-screw extruder);
a cylinder where the screw is contained (id.: as shown in fig. 1);
a hopper for injection of the polymer into the cylinder ([0042]: cross-linked polyethylene, which has been crushed into pellets, is fed into the material supply extruder 1 via the hopper 13; fig. 1), and
[an opening and closing apparatus switched between an open state in which an internal space in the hopper is connected to a space on outside of the hopper and a closed state in which the internal space in the hopper is disconnected from the space on the outside of the hopper], wherein
the cylinder ([0044-0046] and fig. 1) includes: a carrier portion that carries the polymer (at least right below the hopper 13), a plasticization portion that plasticizes the polymer (the position, downstream of the carrier portion but upstream of the decomposition portion, e.g., where the cross-linked polyethylene is pressurized to 1 MPa or more and densified in the material supply extruder 1), and a thermal decomposition portion that thermally decomposes the polymer to produce decomposition gas (the position, downstream of an injection position connected to heater 14, wherein the crosslinking “scission” reaction of the crosslinked polyethylene proceeds; of note, here, the limitation “the polymer to produce decomposition gas” is directed to article or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), and wherein
[while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled].
Goto does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., (A) “an opening and closing apparatus” and (B) while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled, but Tashiro and Sato teach the limitation(s) as follows:
Regarding deficiency (A), Tashiro teaches an apparatus comprising: a screw (screw shaft 12) that carries, plasticizes; a cylinder (barrel 10) where the screw is contained; and a hopper (hopper 24) for injection of the polymer into the cylinder, wherein the hopper has an upper end closed (with a sealing lid 44), and an opening and closing apparatus switched between an open state in which an internal space in the hopper is connected to a space on outside of the hopper and a closed state in which the internal space in the hopper is disconnected from the space on the outside of the hopper ([0059, 0062]: a shutter provided on the plate 26 of the hopper 24; figs. 1-3, 5).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0001], fig. 1-3; Tashiro: [0047]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the material supply hopper of Goto to have a known structure of the hopper, e.g., having a shutter on the plate of the hopper at least in a portion wherein the hopper is connected to the barrel, as taught by Tashiro in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of controlling the quality and the quantity of the material supply prior to providing the material from the hopper into the cylinder, for example, by removing air or mixing the material upon purging inert gas, or by heating or cooling the material while it stays in the hopper.
Regarding deficiency (B), Sato teaches a vacuum kneading and extruding method and apparatus (col. 1 lines 11-12; figs. 1-3). A cylinder 20 includes a first, a second, and a third cylinders 20a, 20b, and 20c for housing the screws 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively (col. 5 lines 35-64; fig. 2), and each of the first/second/third cylinders include cooling water passages (col. 5 lines 66-67; fig. 2).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0044-0046] and fig. 1; Sato: abstract, figs. 2-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the extruder of Goto to further have a known structure of cooling water passages as taught by Sato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of maintaining precise temperature control over the polymer melt so as to ensure high-quality, consistent output by preventing overheating or unwanted degradation of the polymer melt, controlling material viscosity, providing safe shutdown capability, or protecting downstream equipment from excessive heat.
Upon the modification, modified Goto still does not specifically disclose that while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled. However, the limitation is directed to the intended use (e.g., a manner of operation) of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114), and the extruder of modified Goto, including an individual cooling water passage in each section of the cylinder, is capable of performing the recited function in each portion of the cylinder in any steps during operation as needed. For example, the temperature(s) in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion would be controlled to be at a desired temperature range, in particular, the temperature of (excessively) heated polymer would be cooled by lowering/cooling the temperature in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion while the screw is at a standstill (i.e., not actively generating a decomposition gas) in order to prevent collecting an abnormally decomposed unwanted product, in order to control the amount/flow/collection rate of an injected gas agent, and/or in order to finish up the operation in a safely cooled state.
Regarding claim 11, Goto teaches a thermal decomposition system (as shown in figs. 1, 2) comprising:
a thermal decomposition extruder that thermally decomposes a polymer (as shown in figs. 1, 2; [0041-0043]: e.g., the crosslink cleavage treatment); and
a suction apparatus (figs. 1-2; [0043, 0053, 0061]: e.g., in combination of a mechanism 25, a valve 23, a trap 16, and a vacuum pump 19),
wherein the thermal decomposition extruder includes
a screw that carries, plasticizes, and thermally decomposes the polymer ([0044-0046]: the material supplying extruder 1 with a twin-screw extruder);
a cylinder where the screw is contained (id.: as shown in fig. 1); and
a hopper for injection of the polymer into the cylinder ([0042]: cross-linked polyethylene, which has been crushed into pellets, is fed into the material supply extruder 1 via the hopper 13; fig. 1),
the hopper has an upper end closed ([0043]: a hopper 13 with a drug diffusion prevention box 21; fig. 1),
the hopper includes a sidewall (enclosure as shown in fig. 1), the [side]wall being provided with an emission hole (through a hole connected to a local exhaust fan 22 or a hole connected to a trap 16 via a valve 23) for emission of decomposition gas to outside of the hopper, the decomposition gas being produced during thermal decomposition of the polymer ([0042, 0043]; fig. 1; of note, here, the limitation “for emission of decomposition gas to outside of the hopper” is directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus, and the hopper having the emission hole is capable of performing the recited function, and thus, the limitation is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2114); moreover, the limitation “the decomposition gas being produced during thermal decomposition of the polymer” is directed to article or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), and
the suction apparatus suctions the decomposition gas through the emission hole (figs. 1-2; [0043, 0053, 0061]: e.g., in combination of a mechanism 25, a valve 23, a trap 16, and a vacuum pump 19; of note, the suction apparatus of Goto is capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2115), moreover, although the gas suctioned through the emission hole is not the decomposition gas, the limitation of decomposition gas is directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), wherein
the cylinder ([0044-0046] and fig. 1) includes: a carrier portion that carries the polymer (at least right below the hopper 13), a plasticization portion that plasticizes the polymer (the position, downstream of the carrier portion but upstream of the decomposition portion, e.g., where the cross-linked polyethylene is pressurized to 1 MPa or more and densified in the material supply extruder 1), and a thermal decomposition portion that thermally decomposes the polymer to produce decomposition gas (the position, downstream of an injection position connected to heater 14, wherein the crosslinking “scission” reaction of the crosslinked polyethylene proceeds; of note, here, the limitation “the polymer to produce decomposition gas” is directed to article or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2115)), and wherein
[while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled].
Goto does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., (A) the “side”wall is provided with an emission hole, and (B) while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled, but Tashiro and Sato teach the limitation(s) and the motivation to combine (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2006143802 A), Tashiro (JP 2007022068 A), and Sato (US 5,589,203) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bettermann (US 4,125,208).
Regarding claim 3, modified Goto teaches the thermal decomposition extruder according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that in the sidewall of the cylinder, a flow channel for flow of coolant is provided.
Bettermann teaches a charging hopper apparatus for supplying granular or pulverous thermoplastic and/or duroplastic materials and/or rubber and/or similar materials to a processing or treating machine, for example an extruder (col. 1 lines 8-14; figs. 1-2). The hopper includes in the sidewall of the cylinder, a flow channel for flow of coolant is provided (col. 3 lines 23-28: the receptacle 1 may be double walled, as shown in FIG. 2 at 26, or may be provided with coils of pipe 26p, in this way, the wall of the receptacle 1 may be cooled as well as, heated, for example, a suitable medium may be introduced between the walls or into the pipe coils).
In the same field of endeavor of a charging hopper apparatus (Goto: [0001], fig. 1-3; Bettermann: figs. 1, 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to hopper of modified Goto to further have a known cooling/heating mechanism, e.g., a double wall or a coils of pipe in the hopper as a flow channel, as taught by Bettermann in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of controlling the material's entry temperature and/or conditions (e.g., humidity, a level of degasification, or fluidity) so as to ensure a stable, consistent flow of raw material into the barrel (Bettermann: derived from col. 1 lines 45-68).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2006143802 A), Tashiro (JP 2007022068 A), and Sato (US 5,589,203) as applied to claim 1 or 5, and further in view of Koyama (JP 2001179779 A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2006143802 A) in view of Tashiro (JP 2007022068 A) and Sato (US 5,589,203) and Koyama (JP 2001179779 A).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, modified Goto teaches the thermal decomposition extruder according to claim 1 or 5, but does not specifically teach that the thermal decomposition extruder further comprises a shaft sealing mechanism that cuts off a flow of the decomposition gas from an upstream end of the cylinder.
Koyama teaches a gas-melted resin injection molding ([0001-0002]). The molding apparatus includes a shaft sealing mechanism that cuts off a flow of the gas from an upstream end of the cylinder ([0026]: a seal ring 27 is fitted to the base end of the screw 14 where the blades are not formed, and the space between the screw 14 and the heating cylinder 12 is fluidly sealed; figs. 1, 5).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Goto: [0001], fig. 1-3; Koyama: [0025], figs. 1, 5), modified Goto discloses that mechanism to prevent gas diffusion in the event of backflow is necessary when mixing polymer compounds and gaseous chemicals in an extruder under high temperature and pressure conditions, especially when vaporized chemicals flow back upstream (Goto: [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to the screw-extruder-based apparatus of modified Goto to have a known sealing ring in upstream of the screw as taught by Tashiro in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of fluidly sealing the space between the screw and the cylinder so as to prevent any gaseous or liquefied material from leaking out of the cylinder during the downstream process.
Regarding claim 7, modified Goto teaches the thermal decomposition extruder as claimed (see above, the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 4).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP H11106427 A) in view of Sato (US 5,589,203).
Regarding claim 8, Saito teaches a thermal decomposition extruder (a twin-screw extruder as shown in figs. 1, 2) that thermally decomposes a polymer ([0005]: acrylic resin thermally decomposed by heating), the thermal decomposition extruder comprising:
a screw that carries, plasticizes, and thermally decomposes the polymer ([0009]: twin-screw 5; fig. 1);
a cylinder where the screw is contained ([0009]: cylinder 2; fig. 1), wherein the cylinder includes
a carrier portion that carries the polymer (at least right below the hopper 3),
a plasticization portion that plasticizes the polymer (melting zones 6a and 6b), and
a thermal decomposition portion that thermally decomposes the polymer to produce decomposition gas (decomposition zones 6c and 6d) ([0008]; fig. 1), and
[while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled].
Saito does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, but Sato teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Sato teaches a vacuum kneading and extruding method and apparatus (col. 1 lines 11-12; figs. 1-3). A cylinder 20 includes a first, a second, and a third cylinders 20a, 20b, and 20c for housing the screws 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively (col. 5 lines 35-64; fig. 2), and each of the first/second/third cylinders include cooling water passages (col. 5 lines 66-67; fig. 2).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Saito: [0005], fig. 1-2; Sato: abstract, figs. 2-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the extruder of Saito to further have a known structure of cooling water passages as taught by Sato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of maintaining precise temperature control over the polymer melt so as to ensure high-quality, consistent output by preventing overheating or unwanted degradation of the polymer melt, controlling material viscosity, providing safe shutdown capability, or protecting downstream equipment from excessive heat.
Upon the modification, modified Saito still does not specifically disclose that while the screw is at a standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled. However, the limitation is directed to the intended use (e.g., a manner of operation) of the claimed apparatus (see MPEP 2114), and the extruder of modified Saito, including an individual cooling water passage in each section of the cylinder, is capable of performing the recited function in each portion of the cylinder in any steps during operation as needed. For example, the temperature(s) in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion would be controlled to be at a desired temperature range, in particular, the temperature of (excessively) heated acrylic resin scrap would be cooled by lowering/cooling the temperature in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion while the screw is at a standstill (i.e., not actively generating a decomposition gas) in order to prevent collecting an abnormally decomposed side product (derived from Saito: [0003, 0005]), in order to control the amount/production rate of decomposed gas product, and/or in order to finish up the operation in a safely cooled state.
Regarding claim 9, Saito teaches the thermal decomposition extruder according to claim 8, wherein while the screw is at the standstill, the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and the thermal decomposition portion are cooled (see above, the 103 rejection of claim 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (JP H11106427 A) and Sato (US 5,589,203) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Kato (JP 2007290200 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Saito teaches the thermal decomposition extruder according to claim 8, but does not specifically teach that the carrier portion is provided with a slit or a mesh for emission of liquefied decomposition gas to outside of cylinder.
Kato teaches an apparatus for recycling waste polystyrene foam into resin raw materials using an extruder ([0001, 0009]; figs. 1-3). Kato teaches that the carrier portion is provided with a slit or a mesh for emission of liquefied decomposition gas to outside of cylinder ([0012]: a steam vent 20 is provided downstream of the supply port 14, near the supply port 14, to release the steam generated inside; figs. 1-3).
In the same field of endeavor of a screw-extruder-based apparatus (Saito: [0005], fig. 1-2; Kato: [0009[, figs. 1-3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the extruder of modified Saito to further have a known structure of a discharge vent in upstream the cylinder (i.e., prior to melting) of as taught by Kato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of removing entrapped air, moisture, or decomposed unwanted side product so as to reduce back pressure and prevent the unwanted impurities from being integrated into melting or downstream process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 11-14) that Saito in view of Sato (as applied to claim 8) does not disclose or suggest that “while the screw is standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled” as (1) Saito’s extruder and Sato’s extruder have different intended uses of the respective extruder, and (2) neither Saito nor Sato concerns the problem that the instant invention intended to solve (i.e., prevent the backflow of decomposition gas).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument(s) (for details, see above, the 103 rejection of claim 8).
At first, the limitation “while the screw is standstill, the carrier portion and the plasticization portion are cooled” is directed to the intended use (e.g., a manner of operation) of the claimed apparatus, and thus, it is only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114). The extruder of modified Saito comprises a carrier portion, a plasticization portion, and a thermal decomposition portion, and each of the portions has a respective cooling means (Saito: [0008-0009] and fig. 1; Sato: col. 5 lines 35-67 and fig. 2), and the extruder is capable of performing the recited function in each portion of the cylinder in any steps during operation as needed. For example, the temperature(s) in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion would be controlled to be at a desired temperature range, in particular, the temperature of (excessively) heated acrylic resin scrap would be cooled by lowering/cooling the temperature in the carrier portion, the plasticization portion, and/or the thermal decomposition portion while the screw is at a standstill (i.e., not actively generating a decomposition gas) in order to prevent collecting an abnormally decomposed side product (derived from Saito: [0003, 0005]), in order to control the amount/production rate of decomposed gas product, and/or in order to finish up the operation in a safely cooled state.
Secondly, although modified Saito does not address the same problem (i.e., preventing the backflow of decomposition gas) that the present inventors recognized and tried to resolve, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant (see MPEP 2144 IV).
Therefore, after reconsideration, claim 8 remains rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 (which have been newly amended by the applicants) have been considered but are not persuasive (see right above, RE: claim 8) or moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment filed on 07/13/2026.
The basis of the applicant’s argument is based upon the changes regarding a manner of operation of a screw extruder. After further search and reconsideration, Sato is applied to the rejection. Thus, when modified Goto’s teaching is further modified in view of Sato, modified Goto does teach/suggest all the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1, 5, 7, and 11 remain rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morohashi (US 6,387,306 B1) teaches a method and an apparatus for molding a raw material by deaerating feed materials in an extrusion process, and the apparatus includes suction holes in a cylinder (abstract, col. 4 line 66-col. 5 line 35; fig. 1).
Looser (GB 2162117 A) teaches a method and an apparatus for thermal regeneration of sheet waste of relatively low bulk density using an extruder (abstract, figs. 1, 2).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights