DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (U.S. Publication 2018/0093233).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a treatment element (figure 4 is considered reading on a treatment element) for treating material by means of a screw machine (the screw machine is considered intended use, however, see figure 1 which teaches a screw machine) comprising: a conveying section (conveyance portion item 22) and a melting section (item 23 is considered reading on the conveying section since paragraph 110 teaches item 23 is used to limit conveyance and increase pressure of the raw material being conveyed which is considered capable of melting material), which is arranged downstream of the conveying section in a conveying direction (item 23 is downstream of item 22), and which is connected in one piece with the conveying section (figure 4 shows items 22 and 23 in one piece).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches wherein the melting section comprises N of kneading disks wherein n is 1 disk (item 23 is in a disc shape and considered reading on a kneading disc).
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi teaches A screw machine for treating material (see figure 1), comprising: a housing (barrel item 4), at least one housing bore formed in the housing (inner volume of item 4 in which the screw is housed), and - at least one treatment element shaft which is arranged in the at least one housing bore (rotary shaft 14), wherein the at least one treatment element shaft comprises at least one treatment element according to claim 1 (see figure 4 and claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi teaches wherein the at least one treatment element shaft comprises at least one profiled shaft on which the at least one treatment element is arranged (item 14 has a shape accommodated items 19 shown in figure 4 and therefore item 14 is considered reading on a profiled shaft).
Regarding claim 21, Kobayashi teaches comprising a profiled throughbore for fastening the treatment element on a profiled shaft of the screw machine (see figure 5, opening and items 19 which attach to the shaft are considered reading on a profiled throughbore).
Regarding claim 22, Kobayashi teaches wherein the conveying section comprises a screw element (figure 4, item 22 is a screw shape with flights 25), and wherein the melting section comprises at least one kneading disc (item 23 is a disc shape and considered reading one a kneading disc), the at least one kneading disc being connected in one piece with the screw element (item 23 is connected to item 22 in one piece).
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 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kobayashi (U.S. Publication 2018/0093233).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi is silent to the specific size of the kneading disc. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the disc in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi is silent to the specific size of the conveying section. Regarding claim 10, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the conveying section in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi is silent to the specific size of the conveying section. Regarding claim 11, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the conveying section in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kobayashi (U.S. Publication 2018/0093233) in view of Burkhardt (U.S. Publication 2012/0182823).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi is silent to the multiple disc configuration. Regarding claim 3, Regarding claim 3, Burkhardt teaches kneading discs with an offset configuration and an angle that is more than or equal to 0 degrees and less than or equal to 90 degrees (paragraph 58 teaches an offset angle of 37). Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the angle of the kneading discs in the melting zone in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi is silent to the disc shape. Regarding claim 4, Burkhardt teaches wherein the melting section comprises at least one kneading disk which is twisted between a first side and a second side (figure 9 shows a twisted shape for kneading discs, figure 1 shows kneading discs in item 24). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi is silent to the disc shape. Regarding claim 5, Burkhardt teaches wherein the at least one kneading disk has a twist angled between the first side and the second side, wherein the angle is more than zero degrees and less than or equal to 30 degrees (paragraph 58 teaches a range between 0 and 360 degrees from A1 to A2, and 30 degrees is considered a value in the range). Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi is silent to the specific size of the kneading disc. Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 6, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to modify the shape of the disc in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi is silent to the disc configuration. Regarding claim 7, Burkhardt teaches kneading discs with an offset configuration and an angle that is more than or equal to 5 degrees and less than or equal to 70 degrees (paragraph 58 teaches an offset angle of 37). Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 7, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to rearrange the angle of the kneading discs in the melting zone in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 12. Regarding claim 12, Burkhardt teaches wherein the conveying section and the melting section have an offset angle b relative to one another wherein b is less than or equal to zero degrees and less than or equal to 90 degrees (a portion of the screw thread shown in item 23 is considered having an angle offset of one of the kneading discs in item 24 with a degree angle between 0 and 90 since the screw thread rotates as it extends along the shaft). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 13. Regarding claim 13, Burkhardt teaches comprising a supporting section (mixing zone 26 is considered reading on a support section) which is arranged downstream of the melting section in the conveying direction and is connected in one piece with the melting section (the drive shaft connects items 29 and 31). Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 14. Regarding claim 14, Burkhardt teaches wherein the supporting section comprises at least one kneading disk (item 31 kneading element is considered reading on a kneading disc). Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation.
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 15. Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 15, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the disc in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi is silent to the specific shape of the kneading disc. Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 16, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the disc in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 17. Regarding claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the melt and support sections in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Kobayashi is silent to the language of claim 18. Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading disc configuration of Kobayashi with the kneading disc configuration of Burkhardt in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the conveying and support sections in order to obtain the desired degree of agitation since it is well settled that it is an obvious matter of design choice to change the general shape or size of a known element in the absence of a disclosed non-obvious advantage associated with the change. Gardner vs. TEC Systems Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
The cancelation of claim 9 is acknowledged.
The remarks regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) rejection of claim 1 have been considered and are persuasive. Burkhardt (U.S. Publication 2012/0182823) is silent to the melting and conveying section being connected in one piece. However, A new ground of rejection is provided.
The remarks regarding the remaining dependent claims are based off the claim 1 remarks. The previously presented and new claims are also rejected with a new ground of rejection.
Note that an attempt to call Applicant’s Representative on 8/21/2026 was attempted but a response was not received in time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights