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 filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, features allegedly missing from Meyer, Arai and Guenther are disclosed by newly added reference Pearson. Applicant is reminded In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). When the placement of the separation plane in Guenther is incorporated into the combination of Meyer and Pearson, every structural limitation would be disclosed. Furthermore, as Guenther demonstrates the distribution groove can be formed in the separation plane, there is a high degree of predictability and a reasonable expectation of success that the inlet groove (which is structurally just the start of the same groove) could be formed there as well.
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.
Claims 1-13, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 2024/0100761) in view of Guenther (US 20140287087) and Pearson (US 3561053).
As to claim 1, Meyer teaches manifold plate for a manifold [Fig 1a-1c] capable of supplying thermoplastic plastic melt to at least one extrusion head for producing a preform [0119], the manifold plate comprising: a first plate side (top of 4a or top of 4b-4e) and a second plate side (bottom of 4a-4e); a distribution channel (11 or 11’) extending in a plate plane of the first plate side; and at least one connecting channel (the curved section) adjoining the distribution groove (11 or 11’), said at least one connecting channel is incorporated in the manifold plate and ends at an outlet opening in the second plate side, and said at least one connecting channel is milled into the manifold plate and, in the flow direction, has a course which is curved at least partially towards the second plate side [Fig 1a-1].
Meyer does not explicitly state the distribution channel is a groove formed in the first plate side.
Guenther teaches a runner plate for distributing plastic resin [Abstract] wherein the distribution channel (55) is formed as a groove open on the first side plane of the plate and a connecting channel including an inlet opening and adjoining an outlet in the second plane [Fig 4, 6]. This allows for efficient distribution [0013] and allows for “simple” and “cost-effective construction” via milling [0013] and allowed for more efficient spacing [0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Meyer and utilized an open groove as the distribution channel and the connecting channel including an inlet opening adjoining the outlet of the distribution groove and produced the apparatus via milling, as suggested by Guenther, as this had proven successful at evenly distributing the resin, was more compact, “simple,” and “cost-effective.
Meyer teaches a front face perpendicular to the first plane and 2nd plane, a mass inlet, an inlet groove, and a distribution groove downstream of the inlet groove [Fig 1a-1c, 4a-4e], but does not explicitly state a the inlet groove is formed in the first plate plane and that the mass inlet is formed in the front face.
Pearson teaches a mass inlet formed in the front face positioned perpendicular to the first and 2nd separation planes and notes that the groove is within a separation plane [Fig 1, claim 1]. This allows for the even flow of heat sensitive thermoplastic material [col 4 line 43-70, col 1 line 44-col 2 line 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Meyer and utilized a mass inlet in a front face positioned perpendicular to the first and 2nd separation planes and had a groove formed in the separation plane, as suggested by Pearson, in order to allow for the even flow of heat sensitive thermoplastic material.
As to claim 2, Meyer teaches the at least one connecting channel defines a course line and has a curved section, the course line in the curved section being curved in the flow direction towards the second plate side [Fig 1c].
As to claims 3 and 4, Meyer teaches the curved section of the at least one connecting channel on an outlet side as a conduit closed in the circumferential direction around the course line [Fig 1a-1c], but does explicitly state that the curved section is formed on an inlet side as a groove open perpendicular to the course line and an inlet section upstream of the curved section extending in the plate plane of the first plate side, the inlet section being designed as a groove open to the plate plane of the first plate side
Guenther teaches a runner plate for distributing plastic resin [Abstract] wherein the distribution channel (55) is formed as a groove open on the first side plane of the plate and a connecting channel including an inlet opening and adjoining an outlet in the second plane [Fig 4, 6]. This allows for efficient distribution [0013] and allows for “simple” and “cost-effective construction” via milling [0013] and allowed for more efficient spacing [0014]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Meyer and utilized an open groove as the distribution channel as well as had an upstream straight section and the curved section be open, as suggested by Guenther, as this had proven successful at evenly distributing the resin, was more compact, “simple,” and “cost-effective.
The open distribution groove of Guenther can be arbitrarily divided such that a portion of it is considered the upstream portion and when the open connection segment of Arai is incorporated into the curved connection portion of Meyer an open curved section would result.
As to claim 5, Meyer teaches a tangent to the course line in the curved section encloses an angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with the plate plane of the first plate side see [Fig 10A].
Note: the examiner realizes this is not the intention of this claim, however, as stated the tilted angle of the entire runner in Fig 10a would meet this claim.
As to claim 6, Meyer teaches the at least one connecting channel has, downstream of the curved section, a further curved section in which the course line is curved in the flow direction towards the second plate side (the further curved sections of 4b-4e) [Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 7, Meyer teaches the at least one connecting channel has a transition section between the curved section and the further curved section, in which the course line is straight (the straight horizontal sections of 4b-4e) [Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 8, Meyer teaches the at least one connecting channel has an outlet section ending at the outlet opening, the course line in the outlet section being straight and extending transversely to the first plate side outlets of 4b-4e [Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 9, Meyer teaches the first plate side and the second plate side are outer sides of the manifold plate facing away from each other [Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 10, Meyer teaches the distribution groove divides into two of the connecting channels [Fig 1a].
As to claim 11, Meyer teaches the manifold plate has one of the distribution grooves [Fig 1a-1c] per extrusion head [0048].
As to claim 12, Meyer teaches a manifold for supplying thermoplastic plastic melt to at least one extrusion head for producing a preform [0119], the manifold comprising at least one manifold plate according to claim 1 as explained above and a cover plate (17) [0157, Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 13, Meyer teaches an extrusion assembly comprising the manifold according to claim 12 and at least one extrusion head for producing a preform [0048, 0119].
As to claim 17, Meyer teaches the connecting channel extends through a thickness of the manifold plate [Fig 1a-1c].
As to claim 18, The combination of Meyer, Guenther and Pearson teach all the recited structural elements and therefore when in operation thermoplastic melt would traverse the parts in the same manner. The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114 II.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 2024/0100761), Guenther (US 20140287087) and Pearson (US 3561053), as applied to claims 1-13, 17, 18 above, and in further view of Macosko (US 4990293). Note this is an alternative rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 5, Meyer teaches a tangent to the course line in the curved section encloses an angle of greater than 0 degrees and less than 60 degrees with the plate plane of the first plate side see [Fig 10A].
Macosko discloses a melt conductor blocks wherein the curved passages and notes that the angle of the curved sections is a results effective variable as “ If this angle is too large, the flow will change direction abruptly and create large areas of near stagnant material. On the other hand if the splitting angle is too small… would result in an excessive pressure drop through the die. Preferably, the splitting angle is approximately 30 degrees… A range of potential splitting angles lies between 0 degrees and 60 degrees.” [col 9 line 59-col 10 line 25, Fig 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Meyer and had the curved portion have the exact range of 0 to 60 degrees, as suggested by Macosko in order to have the optimal angle to avoid stagnation and pressure drop.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 2024/0100761), Pearson (US 3561053), and Guenther (US 20140287087), as applied to claims 1-13, 17, 18 above, and in further view of Arai (JP S62220313).
As to claim 16, Meyer teaches the connecting channel has a curved section as discussed above but does not state that the connecting channel comprises an inlet section formed in the first plate side and open to the plate plane of the plate side and a first curved section downstream from the inlet section the first curved section and the inlet section defining an obtuse angle.
Arai teaches a runner plate for distributing plastic resin [Abstract] wherein the distribution channel is formed as a groove open on the first side of the plate and as the channel connecting the groove to mold is angled in at an angle relative to the channel of greater than 90 degrees it is an obtuse angle [Fig 1, 7]. This allows for even distribution and prevents excess pressure [Constitution]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Meyer and utilized an open groove as the distribution channel, as suggested by Arai, as this had proven successful at evenly distributing the resin and preventing excess pressure.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights