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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 6, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses a processing system for processing an energy storage material comprising a mixing device (figure 2, mixing unit 1) for processing the energy storage material, wherein a pressure buildup device (unit 2) is disposed downstream of the mixing device in order to increase a pressure of the energy storage material (paragraph 0026, “the pressure is greater than 10 Bar”). 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.
Regarding claim 2, Chou discloses the mixing device comprising a processing screw machine (figure 2, unit 1 having screw rod 13).
Regarding claim 3, Chou discloses 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”).
Regarding claim 4, Chou discloses the pressure buildup device comprises a pressure buildup screw machine (figure 2, unit 2 having screw 22).
Regarding claim 6, Chou discloses a single-shaft pressure buildup screw machine (figure 2, screw 22; paragraph 0018, “a second screw rod 22”).
Regarding claim 8, Chou is discloses a screw machine having an intake zone and a pressure buildup zone (see figure 2). The term “zone” is extremely broad, and the device of Chou has a portion where materials are taken in (near tube 24) and allows for pressure buildup, and so is considered to have “zones” as recited.
Regarding claim 10, Chou discloses 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.
Regarding claim 11, Chou discloses wherein a connecting device (figure 2, connecting tube 24) 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 2).
Regarding claim 12, Chou discloses the mixing device and the pressure buildup device are connected to one another (via connecting tube 24 in figure 2) in order to feed the energy storage material to the pressure buildup device.
Regarding claim 13, Chou discloses an extrusion tool (figure 2, extrusion unit 6) 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou).
Regarding claim 5, although Chou is silent to the dimensions of screw rod 22, 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 second screw rod of Chou (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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou) in view of Kariya et al. (US PGPub 2016/0009010, hereinafter Kariya).
Regarding claim 7, Chou is silent to a multi-shaft pressure buildup screw machine. Kariya teaches a screw machine that allows for pressure buildup and indicates that a single screw or multi-shaft machine can be used (paragraph 0069). Based on the teaching of Kariya, single- and multi-shaft machines are known in the art and known to be useful for similar applications. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted a multi-shaft machine for the pressure buildup screw machine of Chou because such a substitution would provide only the predictable result of moving material through the screw, as evidenced by Kariya.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou) in view of Pohl (US PGPub 2015/0367532, hereinafter Pohl).
Regarding claim 8, if it is determined that Chou does not have “zones” as recited, Pohl teaches a pressure buildup screw machine that has an intake zone (figure 1, portion near hopper of consistent shaft diameter) and a pressure buildup zone (downstream portion having larger shaft diameter). To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to have substituted the screw of Pohl for that of Chou because such a simple substitution would provide only the predictable result of moving material through the device, as evidenced by the references.
Claims 9 and 14 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US PGPub 2019/006199, hereinafter Chou) in view of Penneau et al. (US PGPub 2003/0175494, hereinafter Penneau).
Regarding claim 9, Chou 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 2 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 Chou with the ratio of Penneau because Penneau indicates that these screw diameters are useful for producing a desire product (paragraphs 0123-0142).
Regarding claim 14, Chou discloses providing a processing system according to claim 1. Chou 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 Chou 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited prior art generally discloses devices having screw machines for mixing or buildup of pressure.
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
Prosecution Insights