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 Amendment
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 1 – 13 are withdrawn.
In view of amendment, filed on 02/12/2026, the following objection / rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 12/22/2025.
Objection to claim 18.
Rejection of claims 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sagar et al. (US 2022/0088862)
Rejection of claims 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Mallay (US 4,167,386)
Rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Brahmandam et al. (US 2016/0151952)
Rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Brahmandam et al. (US 2016/0151952) in view of Matsuda (JP 2009056779)
New Grounds of Rejections
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 14 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US 2022/0088862) in view of Mallay (US 4,167,386).
Sagr et al. (US 2022/0088862) disclose an extrusion nozzle (1) for processing 3D printing material, having a nozzle base (2) with a seat (22) for fastening in a 3D printing device and an outlet portion (21), said outlet portion (21) comprising a nozzle insert (3), and the nozzle base (2) consisting of a solid carbide, metal or brass and the nozzle insert (3) including a PCD (polycrystalline diamond) material. (see the abstract)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A die (2))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A nozzle insert (3) comprises a PCD material)]
PNG
media_image1.png
378
338
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An exit face (3, 21) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Extrusion nozzle (1))]
PNG
media_image2.png
494
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, Sagr et al. (US ‘862) disclose extruding a molten polymer through a die (a nozzle body 2, ¶ [0027]) comprising an exit face (a surface of the outlet portion 21 and a nozzle insert 3, ¶ [0027]) constructed at least in part from polycrystalline diamond (PCD) (the nozzle insert 3 comprises a PCD material, ¶ [0010]) and attached (connection piece 3a made of solid carbide, ¶ [0036] - ¶ [0037]) to an outlet of an extruder (extrusion nozzle 1, ¶ [0027]).
As to claim 15, Sagr et al. (US ‘862) teach the exit face (a surface of the outlet portion 21 and a nozzle insert 3) comprises at least one nib (where the orifice is formed in the body of the nozzle insert 3) constructed from polycrystalline diamond (the nozzle insert 3 comprises a PCD material, ¶ [0010]).
As to claim 17, Sagr et al. (US ‘862) disclose a molten polymer is selected of polyetherketones (a temperature-resistant extrusion nozzle can thus be provided, which can be used, for example, when processing PEEK plastics, ¶ [0013]).
Sagr et al. (US ‘862) teach the exit face (an outlet portion 21 including a surface of the nozzle insert 3, ¶ [0027]) comprises at least one nib (where the orifice is formed in the body of the nozzle insert 3) constructed from polycrystalline diamond.
Sagr et al. (US ‘862) disclose a nozzle insert (3) is affixed to an outlet of an extruder (extrusion nozzle 1, ¶ [0027]) through (connection piece 3a made of solid carbide, ¶ [0036] - ¶ [0037]), as claimed in claims 16 and 20.
However, Sagr et al. (US ‘862) fail to disclose pelletizing the molten polymer exiting the die by contacting the molten polymer with a pelletizer array, wherein the pelletizer array comprises pelletizer blades secured to the pelletizer array by shanks, as claimed in claim 14, and the exit face comprises at least one multi-hole nib constructed from polycrystalline diamond, as claimed in claim 16.
In the analogous art, Mallay (US ‘386) disclose an extrusion die plate (A) for a pelletizing apparatus comprising: a die plate body (10) having a die plate face (26) and provided with a plurality of extrusion passageways (20) extending therethrough, discreet, spaced extrusion port formations (24) positioned on said die plate body (10), each of the extrusion port formations (24) having a portion protruding outwardly from the die plate face (26), each of the formations (24) defining an extrusion port (22) which registers with one of the extrusion passageways (20) in the die plate body (10), the extrusion port (22) terminating at an extrusion orifice (18), each of the extrusion port formations (24), being formed of a unitary body of a machinable material of greater abrasion resistant than the material of the die plate body (10), each of the formations (24) having a substantially planar discharge surface surrounding the extrusion orifice (18), the surfaces being substantially coplanar, and an abrasion resistant facing being positioned on the die plate face (26), the facing substantially filling the space between the extrusion port formations (24), and forming a substantially planar discharge face (36) with the discharge surfaces (32) on the extrusion port formations (24). (see claim 1)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A pelletizer array )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Exit face (34, 34a, 32))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Multi-hole nib (24))]
PNG
media_image3.png
364
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, Mallay (US ‘386) teach pelletizing the molten polymer exiting the die (die plate A) by contacting the molten polymer with a pelletizer array (a plurality of extrusion orifices 18 which terminate at face 36 and which are generally uniformly distributed but which can be in any desired, even non-uniform pattern, col. 4, lines 14-17) constructed at least in part from polycrystalline diamond (col. 6, lines 14-15), wherein the pelletizer array comprises pelletizer blades secured to the pelletizer array by shanks (col. 6, lines 25 – 27).
As to claim 16, Mallay (US ‘386) teach the exit face (the abrasion resistant facing 34 having a surface 34a which is substantially coplanar with discharge surfaces 32, col. 4, lines 54-61) comprises at least one multi-hole nib (an extrusion port formation 24, col. 4, lines 34-38, and a plurality of extrusion orifices 18, col. 4, lines 13-17) constructed from polycrystalline diamond. (The facing material 34, different from the material of the die plate body and the formation 24, will be made of a hard, wear resistant material such as diamond, col. 6, lines 10-15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the exit face, as taught by Sagr et al. (US ‘862), through providing the exit face by multi-hole nib and/or a pelletizer array which is constructed from polycrystalline diamond in order to provide discreet, spaced extrusion port formations made of a unitary body of a machinable material of greater hardness than the material of the die plate body, as suggested by Mallay (US ‘386): see the abstract.
Further, combined teachings of Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Mallay (US ‘386) fail to disclose each pelletizer blade is a monobloc of a polycrystalline diamond, as claimed in claim 14.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of Applicant’s invention to modify each pelletizer blade, as taught by combined teachings of Sagr et al. (US ‘862) and Mallay (US ‘386), so to be monobloc in order to improve a wear resistance of the blade which results in higher strength and longevity of arrays of cutting blades.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Mallay (US 4,167,386) and further in view of Brahmandam et al. (US 2016/0151952).
The combined teaching of Sagr et al. (US ‘862) and Mallay (US ‘386) disclose a method of extruding polymer, as claimed, and further Sagr et al. (US ‘862) disclose the exit face (a surface of the outlet portion 21 and a nozzle insert 3, ¶ [0027]) comprises a polycrystalline diamond element (¶ [0027]), however, fail to disclose the overall thickness of the polycrystalline diamond element is in the range of about 1 mm to about 10 mm, as claimed in claim 18.
In the analogous art, Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) disclose a pelletizing extrusion die comprising a die body contains a plurality of extrusion holes. Each of the extrusion holes is defined by a defining surface of the die body wherein at least a portion of the defining surface has a low-friction coating deposited thereon. (see the abstract) The low-friction coating 40 may comprise any material that exhibits low friction while having sufficient wear and corrosion and erosion properties wherein the low-friction coating may be an ultralow friction diamond-like carbon (DLC). (see ¶ [0026])
Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) disclose the coating thickness may be at least 25 microns, at least 50 microns, at least 100 microns, or at least 200 microns thick. (see ¶ [0027]) which falls within the thickness range, claimed in claim 18. Further, Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) teach the coating may have toughness properties that allow it to demonstrate no visible spalling on elastically deformed substrate areas during operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to modify a thickness of a polycrystalline diamond element, as taught by the teachings of modified Sagr et al. (US ‘862), through forming a thickness of the polycrystalline diamond element to be in the range of about 1 mm to about 10 mm in order to provide a sufficient toughness properties that allow it to demonstrate no visible spalling on elastically deformed substrate areas during operation, as suggested by Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952). (see ¶ [0027])
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr et al. (US ‘862) in view of Mallay (US 4,167,386) and Brahmandam et al. (US 2016/0151952), and further, in view of Matsuda (JP 2009056779).
The combined teaching of Sagr et al. (US ‘862) and Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) disclose a method of extruding polymer, as claimed. Further, Sagr et al. (US ‘862) disclose an exit face (a surface of the outlet portion 21 and a nozzle insert 3, ¶ [0027]) constructed at least in part from polycrystalline diamond (PCD) (the nozzle insert 3 comprises a PCD material, ¶ [0010]) and attached (connection piece 3a made of solid carbide, ¶ [0036] - ¶ [0037]) to an outlet of an extruder (extrusion nozzle 1, ¶ [0027]), however, fail to disclose a polycrystalline diamond element is affixed to the exit face (a surface of the outlet portion 21 and a nozzle insert 3, ¶ [0027]), as claimed in claim 19.
In the analogous art, Matsuda (JP ‘779) disclose a nozzle body (2) having a flow path (2a) for flowing a molding material; a wear-resistant component (3) that forms an injection port (3a) for injecting the molding material from the flow path (2a); an adhesive layer (4) that bonds the nozzle body (2) and the wear-resistant component (3) (see the English Translation, the claim portion).
[AltContent: textbox (An exit face (2b))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An adhesive layer (4))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A polycrystalline diamond element (3))]
PNG
media_image4.png
160
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Matsuda (JP ‘779) discloses the material of the wear-resistant part that preferably exhibits the above-described action include a diamond sintered body or a CBN sintered body. (see the English Translation: under the Tech-Solution)
Therefore, as to claim 19, Matsuda (JP ‘779) teach the polycrystalline diamond element (3) is affixed to the exit face (2b) by an adhesive layer (4). (see the English Translation: under the Tech-Solution)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, to modify the attaching the polycrystalline diamond element to the exit face, as taught by modified Sagr et al. (US ‘862), through providing adhesion between the polycrystalline diamond element to the exit face in order to improve the workability of the attached polycrystalline diamond element to the exit face through effectively suppressing wearing of the flow path, as suggested by Matsuda (JP ‘779), (see the English Translation: under the advantageous-effect).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 02/12/2026, with respect to claim(s) 14-19 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.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Mallay is not persuasive as Mallay discloses as Mallay (US ‘386) teach pelletizing the molten polymer exiting the die (die plate A) by contacting the molten polymer with a pelletizer array (a plurality of extrusion orifices 18 which terminate at face 36 and which are generally uniformly distributed but which can be in any desired, even non-uniform pattern, col. 4, lines 14-17) constructed at least in part from polycrystalline diamond (col. 6, lines 14-15), wherein the pelletizer array comprises pelletizer blades secured to the pelletizer array by shanks (col. 6, lines 25 – 27). Further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of Applicant’s invention to modify each pelletizer blade, as taught by combined teachings of Sagr et al. (US ‘862) and Mallay (US ‘386), so to be monobloc in order to improve a wear resistance of the blade which results in higher strength and longevity of arrays of cutting blades.
Moreover, Applicant’s arguments regarding Brahmandam is not persuasive as Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) disclose a pelletizing extrusion die comprising a die body contains a plurality of extrusion holes. Each of the extrusion holes is defined by a defining surface of the die body wherein at least a portion of the defining surface has a low-friction coating deposited thereon. (see the abstract) The low-friction coating 40 may comprise any material that exhibits low friction while having sufficient wear and corrosion and erosion properties wherein the low-friction coating may be an ultralow friction diamond-like carbon (DLC). (see ¶ [0026]) Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) further disclose the coating thickness may be at least 25 microns, at least 50 microns, at least 100 microns, or at least 200 microns thick. (see ¶ [0027]) which falls within the thickness range, claimed in claim 18. Further, Brahmandam et al. (US ‘952) teach the coating may have toughness properties that allow it to demonstrate no visible spalling on elastically deformed substrate areas during operation.
Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding Matsuda is not persuasive as Matsuda (JP ‘779) disclose a nozzle body (2) having a flow path (2a) for flowing a molding material; a wear-resistant component (3) that forms an injection port (3a) for injecting the molding material from the flow path (2a); an adhesive layer (4) that bonds the nozzle body (2) and the wear-resistant component (3) (see the English Translation, the claim portion). Moreover, Matsuda (JP ‘779) discloses the material of the wear-resistant part that preferably exhibits the above-described action include a diamond sintered body or a CBN sintered body. (see the English Translation: under the Tech-Solution) Therefore, as to claim 19, Matsuda (JP ‘779) teach the polycrystalline diamond element (3) is affixed to the exit face (2b) by an adhesive layer (4). (see the English Translation: under the Tech-Solution)
Therefore, arguments are not found persuasive and claims 14-19 are maintained rejected.
Finally, after a full review of the submitted remarks in view of prior art rejections, it has been concluded that there are differences in interpreting the claimed subject matter and the cited references between the Applicant and the Office. Therefore, Examiner would like to suggest that if Applicant’s Counsel believes an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banerjee et al. (US 2010/0129479) disclose a method of making a pelletizing die assembly comprising the steps of: providing a main die body wherein the main die body having a first end face and a second end face, and a plurality of passageways extending through said main die body between said first and second end faces; placing a first mass of hard matrix particles on the second end face of the main die body; placing a second mass of infiltrant alloy on the first mass of hard matrix particles; heating the first mass and the second mass whereby the infiltrant alloy infiltrates the first mass to form a hard composite material comprising a solid mass of the hard matrix particles bonded together by the infiltrant alloy; and forming bores in the hard composite material to form a top die plate wherein the bores are in alignment with the passageways in the main die body. (see claim 23)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 05/30/2025
Prosecution Insights