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 04/26/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the specification objection(s), Applicant’s reply fails to address the objection to the Abstract. Furthermore, the argued novel improvement in Applicant’s apparatus is not present in the Abstract. Thus, the abstract objection is maintained.
With respect to the claim interpretation(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the claim interpretations are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s).
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) have overcome the objection(s). However, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) introduced new claims objections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) have overcome the previous claim rejections with the exception of the rejection of claim 16 about the language “through reciprocation of the nozzle in the mold bore”. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) introduced new claim rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the newly added limitations, Applicant’s argument that support for the newly added limitations are found at paragraphs at [0038] and [0042] and Figures 8 and 9 is not fount persuasive in view of the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) set forth below. Examiner respectfully submits that [0038] and [0042] of Specification do not mention a w-flight. Fig. 9 does not show or describe a w-flight. Fig. 8 clearly shows that the disclosed vent (devolatilizing) sections 831 and 837 are not w-flighted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract describes apparatus already known in the art (See previous prior art rejections and prior art of record disclosing all the features recited in the Abstract). A correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Canceled claims 3-4, 6, 15, 18-19 and 22 should not include text. See MPEP § 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
Previously canceled claims 5 and 7-12 should be present in the claim listing because a complete listing of all claims ever presented is required. See MPEP § 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation “at least one devolatilizing section having a w-flight that is vented to the atmosphere to permit escape of volatile materials from the resin in the plasticizing unit” which is considered to be new matter because the original disclosure does not have adequate support for this limitation. According to Applicant, [0038] and [0042] and Figures 8-9 of Specification provide support. However, [0038] and [0042] do not mention a w-flight. Fig. 9 does not show or describe a w-flight. Fig. 8 clearly shows vent sections 831 and 837 are not w-flighted.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0039] and [0041-0042] of Applicant’s Specification read:
[0039] From metering section 825, the melt passes to a “w-flighted” mixing section 827 that extends over about two diameters (with a depth of about 0.150 inch). Mixing section 827 provides intense shearing action between the sidewall of the barrel and the outer diameter of the w-flights. Melt passes from mixing section 827 into a vent section 831 that has twice the number of flights (“double-flighted”) as feed and metering sections 821, 825 and a profile that is detailed with reference to Figure 9. Vent section 831 is vented to the atmosphere through the containment barrel and comprises a “devolatilizing” feature that assists in removing moisture gaseous and volatile components from the melt, which are vented to the atmosphere by vents in the barrel, which is critical to good molding quality. Vent section 829 extends over about three diameters of the screw.
[0041] Melt then passes to a second mixing section 835 then to a second vent section 837, which are similar to those described above, but mixing section 833 may be shorter than first mixing section 827 at one to 1.5 diameters.
[0042] After second vent section 837, melt passes to a discharge section that is conventionally flighted and steps up in depth (from about 0.200 to 0.150 according to the PTE example).
While Applicant’s original disclosure has support for mixing section(s) 827 and 835 having a w-flight, it does not have support for devolatilizing section(s) 831 and 837 having a w-flight. Therefore, the newly added limitation is considered to be new matter.
Claim(s) 2 and 13-14 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 13 recites the newly added limitation “a second devolatilizing section spaced apart along a length of the screw from the w-flighted devolatilizing section” which is considered to be new matter because the original disclosure does not have adequate support for this limitation for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 16 recites the newly added limitation “one of the first and second devolatilizing sections having a w-flight that is vented” which is considered to be new matter because the original disclosure does not have adequate support for this limitation for the reasons set forth above.
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 16 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 20 recites the newly added limitation “both the first and second devolatilizing sections are w-flighted” which is considered to be new matter because the original disclosure does not have adequate support for this limitation for the reasons set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13-14, 16-17, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation “at least one devolatilizing section having a w-flight that is vented to the atmosphere to permit escape of volatile materials from the resin in the plasticizing unit” which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with [0039], [0041-0042], and Fig. 8 of Applicant’s Specification. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim(s) 2 and 13-14 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 13 recites the newly added limitation “a second devolatilizing section spaced apart along a length of the screw from the w-flighted devolatilizing section” which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with [0039], [0041-0042], and Fig. 8 of Applicant’s Specification. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 16 recites the newly added limitation “one of the first and second devolatilizing sections having a w-flight that is vented” which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with [0039], [0041-0042], and Fig. 8 of Applicant’s Specification. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “through reciprocation of the nozzle in the mold bore” which is indefinite. The claimed language states a function/result obtained by the nozzle without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. It is unclear how the nozzle is capable of reciprocating in the mold bore of the mold. According to paragraphs [0031] of Applicant’s published application, the nozzle is incapable of performing the claimed reciprocation function/result by itself. See MPEP §§ 2173.03 and 2173.05 (g).
Claim(s) 17 and 20-21 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 16 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 20 recites the newly added limitation “both the first and second devolatilizing sections are w-flighted” which is which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with [0039], [0041-0042], and Fig. 8 of Applicant’s Specification. See MPEP § 2173.03.
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.
Fischbach (US 20070262489) discloses a relevant apparatus comprising at least two devolatilizing sections 6 and 8 (P0031 and Fig. 1).
Noresson (WO 97/11829A1 – of record) discloses a relevant apparatus comprising a devolatilizing section (pp. 3-4, Fig. 1, previously applied).
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