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
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending.
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.
(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, 4, 7, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirchhoff et al. (US PGPub 2015/0218335, hereinafter Kirchhoff).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoff discloses a processing system for processing an energy storage material comprising a mixing device (figure 5, preextruder 2) for processing the energy storage material, the mixing device comprising a processing screw machine (paragraph 0213), wherein the processing screw machine comprises at least two treatment element shafts, the at least two treatment element shafts having a same length LA (paragraph 0213, “a preextruder (2), a contrarotating twin-screw extruder having a hole diameter of D1=D2=57 mm and an effective length of 720 mm”); and wherein a pressure buildup device (main extruder 3) is disposed downstream of the mixing device (material moves from preextruder 2 to main extruder 3 through feed zone 4) wherein the pressure buildup device is configured to increase a pressure of the energy storage material (within pressure buildup zones 18.1, 18.2, and 18.3). The recited “energy storage material” is deemed to be a material worked upon by the apparatus, and is thus given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2115. The device of Kirchhoff would be fully capable of working upon such a material, and thus this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 4, Kirchhoff discloses the pressure buildup device comprises a pressure buildup screw machine (figure 5, main extruder 3, paragraph 0213).
Regarding claim 7, Kirchhoff discloses a multi-shaft pressure buildup screw machine (paragraph 0213).
Regarding claim 8, Kirchhoff is discloses a screw machine having an intake zone (figure 4, feed zone 4) and a pressure buildup zone (zones 18.1, 18.2, 18.3).
Regarding claim 11, Kirchhoff discloses wherein a connecting device (figure 5, feed zone 4) is disposed between the mixing device and the pressure buildup device in order to feed the energy storage material to the pressure buildup device (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 12, Kirchhoff discloses the mixing device and the pressure buildup device are connected to one another (via connecting feed zone 4 in figure 5) in order to feed the energy storage material to the pressure buildup device.
Regarding claim 13, Kirchhoff discloses an extrusion tool (figure 5, die plate 23) is disposed downstream of the pressure buildup device.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchhoff et al. (US PGPub 2015/0218335, hereinafter Kirchhoff) in view of Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 3, Kirchhoff is silent to the recited ratios. Chou teaches the processing screw machine comprising at least one treatment element shaft (figure 2, screw rod 13) length LA and an external diameter DA, where: 20 ≤ LA / DA ≤ 60 (paragraph 0026, “the first screw rod 13 has a length-diameter ratio of between 6:1 and 58:1”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the apparatus of Kirchhoff with the ratios of Chou because Chou states that these ratios are advantageous for feeding and discharging materials (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, although Kirchhoff and Chou are silent to the recited ratio, Chou teaches that a length-diameter ratio between 6:1 and 58:1 results in “good feeding and propelling of the raw material” (paragraph 0026). The reference also states that length-diameter ratios “can be adjusted according to factors such as the amount of extrudate, the size of the cross section of the products, etc.” (paragraph 0026). Thus, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the device of Kirchhoff (i.e. the pressure buildup treatment element) with a ratio within the recited range for the purpose of allowing for good feeding of material, and because such ratios are known to be adjustable depending on various factors.
Regarding claim 6, Kirchhoff indicates that single or multi screw extruders are suitable for the device (paragraph 0056), although twin screw extruders are disclosed in the examples. Chou teaches a single-shaft pressure buildup screw machine (figure 2, screw 22; paragraph 0018, “a second screw rod 22”). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the pressure buildup device of Kirchhoff as a single-shaft screw machine because Kirchhoff indicates that such a configuration would be suitable and Chou indicates that such a configuration of a pressure buildup machine is known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Kirchhoff discloses a discharge opening (figure 5, transfer zone 12), but is silent to the opening being above the feed opening of the pressure buildup device. Chou teaches the mixing device has at least one discharge opening (figure 2, at upper end of connecting tube 24) which is disposed above a feed opening (at lower end of connecting tube 24) of the pressure buildup device. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have positioned the discharge of the mixing device above the feed opening of the pressure buildup device for the purpose of allowing gravity to aid in feeding between the devices.
Claims 9 and 14 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchhoff et al. (US PGPub 2015/0218335, hereinafter Kirchhoff) in view of Penneau et al. (US PGPub 2003/0175494, hereinafter Penneau).
Regarding claim 9, Kirchhoff discloses the mixing device comprises a processing screw machine having at least one treatment element shaft and the pressure buildup device comprises a pressure buildup screw machine having at least one pressure buildup treatment element shaft (see rejections of claims 1 and 4), but is silent to the diameter ratio as recited. Penneau teaches a mixing device having a processing screw machine and a pressure buildup device having a pressure buildup screw machine wherein the ratio of the diameter of the screw machine shaft to the pressure buildup screw machine shaft is between 1/5 and 3 (paragraphs 0123 and 0127, diameters of 58 and 30 make the ratio equal to approximately 1.93). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have provided the screws of Kirchhoff with the ratio of Penneau because Penneau indicates that these screw diameters are useful for producing a desired product (paragraphs 0123-0142).
Regarding claim 14, Kirchhoff discloses providing a processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Kirchhoff is silent to processing energy storage material as recited. Penneau teaches a method for processing an energy storage material comprising the steps of: providing a processing system for processing an energy storage material including a mixing device and a pressure buildup device disposed downstream of the mixing device (paragraph 0093); processing the energy storage material by means of the mixing device (paragraph 0123); discharging the energy storage material from the mixing device and feeding the energy storage material to the pressure buildup device (paragraph 0127); increasing a pressure of the energy storage material by means of the pressure buildup device (paragraph 0127); and discharging the energy storage material from the pressure buildup device (paragraph 0127). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have combined the teachings of Kirchhoff and Penneau to arrive at the claimed method because the devices taught by the references are very similar and both are capable of performing the functions as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 MARC C HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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.
/MARC C HOWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
