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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the specification objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the abstract has/have overcome some of the objection(s). However, Applicant’s reply fail to address the objection to the abstract of not reciting a novel improvement. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In this case, the abstract filed on 03/30/2026 fails to recite the alleged novel improvements of the extrusion screw over the prior art record. Thus, this objection is maintained.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 of Amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract fails to include the technical disclosure of the improvement of the screw and merely describes a screw already known in the art (See previous and current prior art rejections of record). If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In fact, the abstract filed on 03/30/2026 fails to recite the argued novel improvements of the extrusion screw over the previous prior art record. A correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 200945700Y with English machine translation – FOR of record).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an extrusion screw (P0013, Figure) comprising:
a shaft having a shank end for connection to a drive mechanism and a distal end opposite the shank end (shown shank end and extrusion end of a shaft of the extrusion screw: Figure), wherein the shaft consists of only three helical flight sections (Figure);
a first helical flight (shown helical flight in screw section 2) extending around a first section (screw section 2) of the extrusion screw (P0013, Figure); and
a second helical flight (shown helical flight in screw section 9) extending around a second section (screw section 9) of the extrusion screw (P0013, Figure), wherein the second section is located distal to the first section (9 is located distal to 2: Figure) and wherein the first helical flight has a nominal outer radius less than that of the second helical flight (P0013, claim 5, Figure);
a third section (conical screw section 6) and a third helical flight (shown helical flight in screw section 6) with a flight radius tapered to provide a transition (conical/tapered screw transition) from the first helical flight to the second helical flight (P0013, claim 5, Figure). Thus, Zhang discloses the extrusion screw substantially as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-7, Zhou further discloses wherein the difference in nominal outer radius between the first helical flight and the second helical flight is from 5 millimeters to 12 millimeters (the diameter of the extruding section can be 6 mm while the diameter of the feeding section 2 close to the clamping section can be 18 mm: pg. 3, Fig. 1; this teachings implies that the radius of the first/smaller screw thread can have a nominal outer of radius of 3 mm while the radius of the second/bigger screw thread can have a nominal outer of radius of 9 mm; thus, the difference in radius between the first/smaller screw thread and the second/bigger screw thread is 9-3 = 6 mm).
Claim(s) 1-2, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gneuss (US 20220134626).
Regarding claims 1-2
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:
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.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang
as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gneuss (US 20220134626 – of record) and/or Wang (CN 202702580U with English machine translation – FOR of record).
Regarding claims 2-4, Zhang fails to disclose wherein the first helical flight has a nominal outer radius that is 50% to 90% or 70% to 80% of that of the second helical flight.
In the same field of endeavor, extrusion screws, Gneuss discloses an extrusion screw (P0045, Fig. 2) comprising:
a shaft (shaft core) having a shank end for connection to a drive mechanism and a distal end opposite the shank end (See annotated Fig. 2);
a first helical flight (31) extending around a first section (21) of the extrusion screw (P0045, Figs. 2-3);
a second helical flight (35) extending around a second section (25) of the extrusion screw (P0045, Figs. 2-3), and
a third helical flight (32) extending around a third section (23) of the extrusion screw (P0045, Figs. 2-3),
wherein the first helical flight (31) has a nominal outer radius (R1 = D1/2) less than that of the second helical flight (R3= D3/2 : P0014, 0047-0051, Claim 1), wherein the first helical flight has a nominal outer radius that is 70% to 80% of that of the second helical flight (P0047-0051, Figs. 2-3) for the benefit(s) of enabling adjustments of the surface temperature of the screw (P0034).
PNG
media_image2.png
356
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, extrusion screws, Wang (CN 202702580U with English machine translation – of record) discloses a single-screw extruder consisting of three screw sections with respective helical flights and the technique of gradually increasing the screw outer diameter from 30 mm to 45mm for the benefit(s) of increasing the output (P0010, Fig. 1; wherein 30mm/45 mm * 100 = 75 %: P0010, Figure).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw of Zhang in view of Gneuss and/or Wang by providing the first helical flight a nominal outer radius that is within the claimed range 70% to 80% of that of the second helical flight for the benefit(s) of enabling adjustments of the surface temperature of the screw and/or increasing the output as suggested by Gneuss and/or Wang. See MPEP 2131.03 II and MPEP 2144.05 I-II.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang further discloses/suggests wherein the first helical flight has a pitch shorter than that of the second helical flight (claim 3, Figure).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang further discloses/suggests wherein each of the first and second sections has a constant flight radius (P0010, Figure).
Zhang fails to disclose wherein the first helical flight has a nominal outer radius that is 50% to 90% or 70% to 80% of that of the second helical flight.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrad (US 20180236705 – of record) and/or Leveque (US 2003001658 – of record).
Regarding claims 9-11, Zhang is silent about a pitch percentage between the helical flights.
In the same field of endeavor, extrusion screws, Conrad discloses the technique of providing a first helical flight (screw flight at the input end 1302) having a pitch (0.25 inches pitch) that is 50% of that of a second flight (screw flight in zone 1304 having a 0.5 inches pitch: P0198, FIG. 19) for the benefit(s) of preventing excessive shearing (P0004).
In the same field of endeavor, extrusion screws, Leveque discloses the technique of providing a first helical flight (screw flight 43 at feed zone 29) having a pitch (26 mm) that is 54% of that of a second flight (screw flight 47 in zone 1304 having a 48 mm pitch: P061-0070, Table 2, FIG. 2) for the benefit(s) of improving flow rate (P0033, 0063, Table 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw of Zhang in view of Conrad and/or Leveque by providing the first helical flight with a pitch that is 50% or 54% of that of the second flight for the benefit(s) of improving homogenization, compaction, and/or local flow rate while preventing excessive shearing.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shelby (US 20090315219 – of record).
Regarding claims 13-15, Zhang is silent about a length percentage between the first section and the total length of the screw.
In the same field of endeavor, extrusion screws, Shelby discloses the technique of providing a first section (feeding section 3) with a length (f * L) that is 16% and 45% of the overall length of the screw for the benefit(s) of optimizing/decreasing melt temperatures and bubble/gel formation (Abstract, claim 1, P0133, Fig. 1). Shelby further discloses that the length (f * L) of the first section with respect to the total length of the screw is a result-effective/changeable variable that optimizes/decreases melt temperatures and bubble/gel formation (P0009, 0018, 0077, 0080, 0166). Due to the overlapping of taught and claimed ranges, closed numerical proximity of the upper range of 16% of Shelby to the claimed upper range of 15%, Shelby’s disclaimer about numerical ranges in his disclosure (P0033-0034), and Shelby’s teachings above, Shelby implicitly discloses/suggests at least the claimed upper range of 15%.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the screw of Zhang in view of Shelby by providing the first section with a length that is 15% of the overall length of the screw for the benefit(s) of optimizing/decreasing melt temperatures and bubble/gel formation as suggested by Shelby.
Conclusion
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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Suyuan (CN 212219220 U of record) discloses a relevant extrusion screw (Fig. 1) comprising helical flights having different/increasing radiuses from a feeding section to an extrusion section (Abstract, Fig. 1, and accompanying text). Suyuan further discloses the technique of providing the first section (feeding section) with a length that is 20% of the overall length of the screw for the benefit(s) of improving efficiency and performance of the extrusion screw (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights