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 Interpretation
Claim 7 recites “according to viscosity of a kneaded product obtained from the second kneader” and as best understood this viscosity is a desired viscosity rather than a measured viscosity. The specification only appears to disclose a viscosity measurement occurring after the first kneader (viscometer 130, Figs. 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “a first resin kneaded by a first kneader” and it is unclear as to what is required for the configuration of the device or if the claim requires a first kneader or if the limitation of the claims would be met by a single kneader.
Claim 1 could be amended as:
“A kneading apparatus, comprising: a first kneader for kneading a first resin and a second kneader for introducing a second resin into [[a]] the first resin kneaded by [[a]] the first kneader and performing kneading of the first resin and the second resin, wherein the second kneader is configured to change an introduced amount of the second resin according to viscosity of the first resin kneaded by the first kneader” or similar to clarify what is required of the device.
It is also recommended to amend claim 6 by removing “further comprising: the first kneader for kneading the first resin,” which would be redundant if claim 1 was amended as above.
It is likewise recommended to amend claim 7 as:
“A kneading apparatus, comprising:
a first kneader for kneading a first resin and a second kneader for introducing a second resin and a third resin to [[a]] the first resin kneaded by [[a]] the first kneader and performing kneading of the first resin, the second resin, and the third resin, wherein
the second kneader is configured to change a ratio between an introduced amount of the second resin and an introduced amount of the third resin according to viscosity of a kneaded product obtained from the second kneader” or similar.
It is also recommended to amend claim 9 as discussed above for claim 6.
Claim 8 recites “a resin obtained by the kneading performed by the second kneader” in line 3 and “the resin” in line 5 and it is unclear if this is the “kneaded product” previously recited in claim 7. Recitation of “a resin” in line 3 and “the resin” in line 5 could each be changed to “the kneaded product” for clarify.
Claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 or claim 7.
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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apelt et al. (Applicant provided DE 102019203689) in view of Eiichiro et al. (attached translation of JP 2010260938).
Regarding claim 1, Apelt et al. discloses a kneading apparatus (Fig. 1) shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
547
1190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Apelt et al. discloses the device comprises: a second kneader (second compounding device 3) for introducing a second resin (the variable addition of fresh material as a corrective measure, para. [0014], performed by the second compounding device 3, para. [0023]) into a first resin (para. [0005], recyclate 7) kneaded by a first kneader and performing kneading of the first resin and the second resin (Fig. 1).
Apelt et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the second kneader changes an introduced amount of the second resin according to viscosity of the first resin kneaded by the first kneader, but Apelt et al. discloses a sensor (sensor 4) and evaluation unit (unit 5) may measure the viscosity (para. [0012]) of the resin leaving the first kneader (Fig. 1) and Eiichiro et al. teaches a kneading apparatus (such as having an extruder, para. [0048]) for recycling plastic (Abstract) and Eiichiro et al. teaches the viscosity is adjusted (para. [0022], fluidity is the reciprocal of viscosity and reads on “viscosity”) by measuring (para. [0025]) and adding resin (virgin material, para. [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader (second compounding device 3, para. [0023]) changes an introduced amount of the second resin (Eiichiro et al., virgin material, para. [0024], Apelt et al., other types of plastic, para. [0031], fresh material, para. [0033]) according to viscosity of the first resin kneaded by the first kneader (Eiichiro et al., para. [0025]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the viscosity of a resin by measuring the viscosity and adding an amount of resin of a different viscosity to change the viscosity to the desired level.
Regarding claim 6, Apelt et al. discloses the apparatus comprises the first kneader for kneading the first resin, wherein the second kneader is connected to the first kneader on a downstream side of the first kneader (Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apelt et al. (Applicant provided DE 102019203689) in view of Eiichiro et al. (attached translation of JP 2010260938) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pichler (US 20210213645).
Regarding claim 2, Apelt et al. expressly discloses the use of a rheometer (para. [0007]) and determining melt viscosity (para. [0012]) and insomuch as Apelt et al. does not explicitly disclose the use of a viscometer; Pichler teaches a device for mixing plastic melt streams (melt streams comprising plastic, para. [0030]) and adjusting the viscosity of the combined streams (Abstract) and Pichler teaches measuring the viscosity using a viscometer (device 5 or 15, pars. [0058], [0068] and [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the sensor includes a viscometer and the device further comprises a viscometer for measuring the viscosity of the first resin kneaded by the first kneader, wherein the second kneader changes the introduced amount of the second resin according to the viscosity of the first resin measured by the viscometer.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a viscometer to determine viscosity (Apelt et al., para. [0012]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apelt et al. (Applicant provided DE 102019203689) in view of Eiichiro et al. (attached translation of JP 2010260938) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Tsenoglou (attached non-patent literature titled “Molecular weight polydispersity effects on the viscoelasticity of entangled linear polymers” and which is cited in Applicant’s specification) and Pichler (US 20210213645).
Regarding claim 3, Apelt et al. does not expressly disclose the second kneader introduces the second resin in an amount corresponding to a volume fraction of the second resin.
However, Tsenoglou teaches that a viscosity of a polymer mixture (binary blends of linear polybutadienes, page 1764) may be modeled with an equation or plotted experimentally (both shown in Figure 3, page 1764) where a viscosity of the mixture may be estimated using a volume fraction (Figure 3).
Further, Pichler teaches a device for mixing plastic melt streams (melt streams comprising plastic, para. [0030]) and adjusting the viscosity of the combined streams (Abstract) and Pichler teaches mixing (at mixing device 16, Fig. 1) a first portion (melt stream “I”, para. [0032]) and a second portion (melt stream “II”, para. [0032]) where the proportion of the second portion may be based on a volume fraction (volume percent is essentially equivalent to a volume fraction, para. [0090], in that a volume percent is equal to the fraction X 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader introduces the second resin in an amount corresponding to a volume fraction of the second resin, the volume fraction being with respect to a total volume of a resin component charged into the second kneader, the volume fraction being calculated from the viscosity of the first resin (knowing the viscosity of the first resin by measurement, the amount of second resin needed to achieve the desired viscosity may be determined, such as using an equation/curve to determine the volume fraction of the second resin needed as indicated in Tsenoglou, Figure 3).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose a known method of adding material to alter the viscosity.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apelt et al. (Applicant provided DE 102019203689) in view of Eiichiro et al. (attached translation of JP 2010260938) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kensuke (Applicant provided translation of JP 2019065092).
Regarding claim 4, Apelt et al. does not expressly disclose a third resin.
However, Kensuke teaches a kneading apparatus where the melt flow rate (MFR) of a material is increased by adding peroxide to the material in a second kneader (extruder 6) based on a measurement (using measuring device 5, Fig. 1) taken from the material downstream of a first kneader (extruder 2). The MFR is related to viscosity (via fluidity, para. [0041], viscosity being the inverse of fluidity) and in the teaching of Kensuke, the MFR/fluidity is increased (pars. [0007], [0041] and [0055]) which is equivalent to decreasing the viscosity and in view of the teaching of Eiichiro et al. where the viscosity is increased (para. [0022], fluidity is the reciprocal of viscosity and reads on “viscosity”, para. [0024], fluidity is decreased which is equivalent to increasing viscosity) by measuring (para. [0025]) and adding resin (virgin material, para. [0024]), it would have been obvious to likewise lower the viscosity by adding a third resin having lower viscosity than the first resin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader introduces the second resin (to increase viscosity) and a third resin (to decrease viscosity); and the second kneader changes the introduced amount (Apelt et al., as the corrective measure, para. [0014] and [0033]) of the second resin and an introduced amount of the third resin according to the viscosity of the first resin kneaded by the first kneader.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a third resin (such as a lower molecular weight polyolefin, Kensuke, para. [0055]) in order to decrease the viscosity of the first resin.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 4 disclose: the second kneader introduces, as the second resin, a resin having viscosity higher (Eiichiro et al., para. [0024], to decrease fluidity thereby increasing viscosity) than that of a resin obtained by the kneading performed by the second kneader; and the second kneader introduces, as the third resin, a resin having viscosity lower (Kensuke, para. [0041], to increase fluidity thereby decreasing viscosity) than that of the resin obtained by the kneading performed by the second kneader.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apelt et al. (Applicant provided DE 102019203689) in view of Eiichiro et al. (attached translation of JP 2010260938), Kensuke (Applicant provided translation of JP 2019065092), Monden (US 20180291146) and in view of either Cruz (US 8946352) or Abe et al. (US 20200040173).
Regarding claim 7, Apelt et al. discloses a kneading apparatus (Fig. 1) shown above for claim 1.
Apelt et al. discloses the device comprises: a second kneader (second compounding device 3) for introducing a second resin (the variable addition of fresh material as a corrective measure, para. [0014], performed by the second compounding device 3, para. [0023]) into a first resin (para. [0005], recyclate 7) kneaded by a first kneader and performing kneading of the first resin and the second resin (Fig. 1).
Apelt et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the second kneader changes an amount of the second resin according to viscosity of a kneaded product obtained from the second kneader (as best understood, a desired viscosity of the product of the second kneader), but Apelt et al. discloses a sensor (sensor 4) and evaluation unit (unit 5) may measure the viscosity (para. [0012]) of the resin leaving the first kneader (Fig. 1) and Eiichiro et al. teaches a kneading apparatus (such as having an extruder, para. [0048]) for recycling plastic (Abstract) and Eiichiro et al. teaches the viscosity is adjusted (para. [0022], fluidity is the reciprocal of viscosity and reads on “viscosity”) by measuring (para. [0025]) and adding resin (virgin material, para. [0024]) to achieve a desired viscosity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader (second compounding device 3, para. [0023]) changes an introduced amount of the second resin (Eiichiro et al., virgin material, para. [0024], Apelt et al., other types of plastic, para. [0031], fresh material, para. [0033]) according to a desired viscosity of a kneaded product (Eiichiro et al., pars. [0024]-[0025]) from the second kneader (Apelt et al., second compounding device 3).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the viscosity of a resin by measuring the viscosity and adding an amount of resin of a different viscosity to change the viscosity to the desired level.
Apelt et al. does not expressly disclose a third resin.
However, Kensuke teaches a kneading apparatus where the melt flow rate (MFR) of a material is increased by adding peroxide to the material in a second kneader (extruder 6) based on a measurement (using measuring device 5, Fig. 1) taken from the material downstream of a first kneader (extruder 2). The MFR is related to viscosity (via fluidity, para. [0041], viscosity being the inverse of fluidity) and in the teaching of Kensuke, the MFR/fluidity is increased (pars. [0007], [0041] and [0055]) which is equivalent to decreasing the viscosity and in view of the teaching of Eiichiro et al. where the viscosity is increased (para. [0022], fluidity is the reciprocal of viscosity and reads on “viscosity”, para. [0024], fluidity is decreased which is equivalent to increasing viscosity) by measuring (para. [0025]) and adding resin (virgin material, para. [0024]), it would have been obvious to likewise lower the viscosity by adding a third resin having lower viscosity than the first resin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader introduces a third resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a third resin (such as a lower molecular weight polyolefin, Kensuke, para. [0055]) in order to decrease the viscosity of the first resin.
Apelt et al. does not expressly disclose the second kneader performs kneading of the first resin, the second resin and a third resin, but the second kneader would be fully capable of performing kneading on three or more resins as a method of operation of the device and Monden teaches kneading resins (para. [0170]) where more than two polymers having different viscosities may be mixed to achieve a desired viscosity range where the individual polymers may have viscosities outside the range (pars. [0055]-[0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the second kneader performs kneading on the first, second, and third resins where the second kneader changes the amounts of introduced second and third resins where the amounts are determined according to viscosity of a kneaded product obtained from the second kneader (Apelt et al., second compounding device 3).
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to mix first, second and third resins in order to produce a blended or alloy resin (Monden, para. [0110]) having the desired viscosity.
The above-cited references do not expressly disclose the second kneader changes a ratio.
However, Cruz teaches blending polymers (col. 1, line 31) with a viscosity (col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 16) where the amounts are based on a volume fraction ratio (col. 5, lines 1-13, claim 1) or Abe et al. teaches blending polymers of different viscosity (para. [0014]) where the amounts are based on a weight ratio (pars. [0007]-[0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Apelt et al. wherein the kneader changes a ratio between an introduced amount of the second resin and an introduced amount of the third resin.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use any known measure to add an amount of resin, such as a weight, a volume, a volume fraction, a weight ratio or a volume ratio and thereby achieve the predictable result of adding the needed amount of resin to achieve the desired viscosity.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose: the second kneader introduces, as the second resin, a resin having viscosity higher (Eiichiro et al., para. [0024], to decrease fluidity thereby increasing viscosity) than that of a resin obtained by the kneading performed by the second kneader; and the second kneader introduces, as the third resin, a resin having viscosity lower (Kensuke, para. [0041], to increase fluidity thereby decreasing viscosity) than that of the resin obtained by the kneading performed by the second kneader.
Regarding claim 9, Apelt et al. discloses the apparatus comprises the first kneader for kneading the first resin, wherein the second kneader is connected to the first kneader on a downstream side of the first kneader (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and upon resolution of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses devices have two kneaders in series where viscosity is measured in a stream exiting the first kneader and the stream is passed to a second kneader where the viscosity is adjusted using other resins or additives. The prior art of record also discloses kneading devices using a spectroscopic device for adjusting the amount of additive fed to the kneader (where the spectroscopic device measures wavelengths other than infrared).
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a device having two kneaders in series where viscosity is measured in a stream exiting the first kneader and the stream is passed to a second kneader where the viscosity is adjusted using another resin or resin source and where the device further comprises a spectroscopic device for measuring an infrared spectrum of the stream exiting the first kneader and where the second kneader changes the amount of an additive introduced to the second kneader according to the infrared spectrum of the stream.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rudolph (US 4684488) discloses the use of a spectrometer for adjusting an additive amount in an extruder.
Ryuji et al. (WO 2016190311A1) discloses mixing resins of different viscosity to achieve a desired viscosity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights