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.
Claim 1, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burkhardt (U.S. 2012/0182823A1).
Regarding claim 1, Burkhardt teaches a treatment element for treating material by means of a screw machine (the treatment element is considered the shaft and screw inside the housing 2) comprising: a conveying section (item 23 feed zone, which material is conveyed towards item 23) and a melting section (item 24 melt zone) which is arranged downstream of the conveying section in a conveying direction (item 24 is downstream of item 23), and which is connected in one piece with the conveying section (the shaft connects the elements 27, 29, through zones 23 and 24).
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 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 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 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 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 19, Burkhardt teaches a screw machine for a treatment material (see figure 1), comprising a housing (housing formed by items 3, 4, 5, 6), at least one housing bore formed in the housing (opening through which items 27, 29, 31, and 33 are located in the housing), and
at least one treatment element shaft which is arranged in the at least one housing bore, wherein the at least one treatment element shaft comprises at least one treatment element according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18, are rejected under 3 5 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (U.S. 2012/0182823A1).
Regarding claim 2, Burkhard teaches several kneading discs in the melt section of the treatment element (see items 29 in section 24). Regarding claim 2, Burkhardt is silent to the specific number of kneading discs in the melt zone. Regarding claim 2, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling of the claimed invention to choose the desired number of kneading discs based on the desired agitation of material since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
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, Burkhardt is silent to the offset angle specifically in the melt zone. 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 6, Burkhardt is silent to the specific size of the kneading disc. 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, 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, Burkhardt is silent to the offset angle specifically in the melt zone. 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.
Regarding claim 8, Burkhardt is silent to the specific size of the kneading disc. Regarding claim 6, 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, Burkhardt 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, Burkhardt 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).
Regarding claim 15, Burkhardt is silent to the specific shape of the kneading disc. 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, Burkhardt is silent to the specific shape of the kneading disc. 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 17, Burkhardt is silent to the specific shape of the melt and support sections. 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).
Regarding claim 18, Burkhardt is silent to the specific shape of the conveying and support sections. 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).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 S.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhardt (U.S. 2012/0182823A1) in view of Christie (U.S. Patent 9,718,216).
Regarding claim 9, Burkhardt is silent to the chamfered configuration for the disc. Regarding claim 9, Christie teaches a kneading disk (column 7 lines 20-28 ring 15 is considered reading on a kneading disk) having a tip chamfer (column 7 lines 20-28 teaches a chamfer shape on the outer surface). Regarding claim 9, 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 ring to have a chamfer in order to obtain the desired agitation through the kneading disk.
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