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. Claim Objections Regarding claim 9, it is suggested that the claim be amended from “The extruder screw according to the preceding claim,” to “The extruder screw according to claim 8,” in order to enhance the clarity of the claim. 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 1, 2, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzocca (U.S. Publication 2017/0246787). Regarding claim 1, Mazzocca teaches a method for producing an extruder screw (see figure 2 which shows the production of an extruder screw shown in figure 1, the method comprising: a sequentially sliding screw segments (items 200 and 300 are considered reading on screw segments) onto a tensioned longitudinally extending cylindrical tension rod (item 114 spindle is considered reading on a cylindrical tension rod), the screw segments including: radially protruding functional elements configured to feed, mix and/or knead an extrudate (see items 218, 219, 306, 307 and 308, paragraph 48 teaches mixing and an extruder screw element, and paragraph 24 teaches a feed end), a through bore oriented in a longitudinal direction of the extruder screw (see opening proximate item 122 which is considered reading on a bore, oriented along the axis denoted by A), and an inner spline extending in the through bore in the longitudinal direction of the extruder screw (top slot in opening 122 for top key item 118); inserting cylindrical coupling pieces including an outer coupling piece spline into the through bore with positive form locking (top key 118 and slot 116 are used to lock segment 300 and therefore considered reading on an outer coupling piece spline) so that the cylindrical coupling pieces connect adjacent screw segments torque proof (items 300 and 200 are adjacent screw segments and are considered toque proof in order to function); and axially supporting the screw segments at a tip of the tension rod and clamping the screw segments against the tip of the tension rod (item 110 is used at the tip of item 114 to secure the screw segments to the spindle 114 via threads 120), wherein the inner spline extends over an entire length of the through bore (the slots engaging with items 118 are considered extending through the entire of segment 300 in order to slide through and attach to the spindle 114). Regarding claim 1, Mazzocca is silent to the coupling pieces elements specifically being cylindrical. Regarding claim 1, 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 coupling element based on the slot shape in the screw segment 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 2, Mazzocca teaches sliding a drive segment including an outer drive segment slide onto the tension rod (slot on bottom item 116 and bottom item 118 are considered reading on an outer drive segment, item 118 slides onto item 114 via item 116). Regarding claim 8, Mazzocca teaches an extruder screw (figures 1 and 2 show an extruder screw), comprising: a longitudinally extending cylindrical tension rod (spindle item 114 is considered reading on a tension rod); screw segments (items 200 and 300) including: radially protruding functional elements configured to feed, mix and/or knead an extrudate (items 218, 219, 306, 307 and 308), a through bore oriented in the longitudinal direction of the extruder screw (opening item 122), and an inner spline extending in the through bore in the longitudinal direction of the extruder screw (slots in opening item 122 for key item 118), wherein the screw segments are axially supported at a tip of the tension rod and clamped against the tip of the tension rod (item 110 is used at secure items 300 and 200 and is secured to the end of item 114); cylindrical coupling pieces including an outer coupling piece spline inserted into the through bore with positive form locking so that the cylindrical coupling pieces connect adjacent screw segments torque proof (items 118 is used to lock item 300 to item 114), wherein the inner spline extends over an entire length of the through bore (the slots engaging with items 118 are considered extending through the entire of segment 300 in order to slide through and attach to the spindle 114). Regarding claim 8, Mazzocca is silent to the coupling pieces specifically being cylindrical. 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 coupling element based on the slot shape in the screw segment 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 9, Mazzocca teaches wherein the tip includes an inner spline (grooves 126). Regarding claim 10, Mazzocca teaches a screw extruder comprising the screw extruder according to claim 9 (paragraph 23 extruder barrel). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazzocca (U.S. Publication 2017/0246787) in view of Blach (U.S, Publication 2009/0040863). Mazzocca is silent to the language of claim 3. Regarding claim 3, Blach teaches further comprising: threading a clamping nut onto the tension rod (item 47 with threaded portion item 49). 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 extruder screw of Mazzocca with the threaded clamping nut configuration of Blach in order to better secure the extruder screw to the drive. 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 modify the order to assembly of the screw in order to allow for easier installation of the screw since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach an extruder screw with the combination of inner spline, coupling pieces, outer drive segment spline, clamping nut, and the outer clamping nut spline corresponds to the outer drive segment spline of the drive segment spline. Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach extruder screw with the combination of inner spline, coupling pieces, outer drive segment spline, clamping nut, and hydraulically tensioning rod. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7628 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Claire Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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