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 Amendments and Arguments
The examiner has entered and acknowledges the cancellation of claim 9 and the amendments to claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-11.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments referring to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-10, wherein the applicant has argued that Yamasaki “fails to teach an evaporator (including an impeller) positioned on the upper portion of the shaft which in turns defines in its lower portion an endless screw and wherein the shaft and the evaporator are rotatable independently from each other”; while this statement is partially true, specifically that the shaft and evaporator are rotatable independently from each other, this is not what is claimed by the applicant. The applicant only claims that the impeller (which may be part of the shaft) is rotatable independently around a central axis. The applicant’s argument does not pertain to the basis of the initial rejection, thus is not found to be persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments referring to the rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-10, wherein the applicant is arguing the basis of combination of the reference Amedee to Yamasaki because Amedee does not disclose an impeller. A reference used in combination does not need to teach every limitation that the reference it is being combined to teaches. While Amedee may not disclose an impeller, similarly to the initial rejection, the obviousness for combination was that these inventions both exist in the same field of endeavor, but even more specifically wherein each invention has the same function, which is to improve the device and process for the extrusion of molten materials, while removing impurities within the material to be extruded, thus making it obvious for one of reasonable skill to use components, of either invention and combine or add them to the other. Because of the reasons set forth above, this argument is not found persuasive.
In regards to the amended claim set in its entirety, while the persuasiveness of the arguments entered on 04/21/2026 have been considered and defined above, given the applicant has amended independent claim 1, to include information from the former, now cancelled, claim 9, the scope of claims 1-8 and 10-11 have been altered, the prior 103 rejections have been withdrawn and required a new ground of rejection. While the rejections were withdrawn, the examiner may use similar or the same mapping locations for some claim limitations, as they did not find the arguments persuasive.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the applicant's priority to the Italian application IT102021000012026.
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(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (EP0410558A2), in view of Amedee (US3300811A).
In regards to claim 1, Yamasaki teaches a centrifugation station of extrusion plants comprising: {Column 1 Lines 1-6, "a film evaporator … by evaporating and removing solvents … from viscous liquids such as high-polymer resins" and Column 4 Lines 22-23, "the residue is extruded"} a tubular body {Column 2 Lines 16-17, "upper and lower cylindrical sections"} extending along a central axis {Column 2 Lines 22-23, "upper shaft and a lower shaft extending coaxially"} between a supply section defining an inlet of a material to be extruded in molten form and a concurrent release section defining an outlet nozzle of said material to be extruded; {Column 2 Lines 18-21, "a feed inlet … for material containing volatile components" and Col. 4 Lines 22-23, "the residue is extruded through outlet 66"} a shaft having an upper portion extending in said supply section {Column 2 Lines 17-23, "upper section have a feed inlet … an upper and lower shaft both extending coaxially within the vessel} and a threaded lower portion defining an endless screw extending in said release section and configured to promote an exit of the material from the outlet nozzle; {Column 2 Lines 33-35, "a screw is attached coaxially to the lower shaft … to move the material downwardly"} an impeller fitted around the upper portion of the shaft {Column 2 Lines 26-30, "upper section and having a plurality of agitating blades which extent radially"} said impeller including a plurality of blades angularly spaced from each other {Column 2 Lines 25-30, "plurality of agitating blades which extend radially"} and shaped to distribute the molten material to be extruded on an inner wall of the supply duct {Column 2 Lines 28-30, "inclined to the horizontal to spread the material as a film on the inner peripheral wall of the vessel"} favoring an extraction of any volatile compounds from the material to be extruded; {Column 4 Lines 6-12, "agitating blades 84, thus promoting the evaporation of the volatile components and acting to send the liquid downward"} wherein said tubular body and said impeller at least partly define a thin-film evaporator. {Column 2 Lines 16-17, "upper and lower cylindrical sections" and Column 2 Lines 26-27, "upper section having a plurality of agitating blades"}
In regards to claim 2, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 1, and further comprising an actuator unit {Column 3 Lines 20-21, "shaft can be rotated by a motor (not shown) via a belt 80"} configured to rotate the impeller and the shaft at different rotation speeds. {Column 4 Lines 35-38, "to be controlled by varying rotational speeds"}
In regards to claim 4, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 1, wherein each of the blades of the impeller extends between a radially inner portion, proximal to the central axis, and a radially outer portion, proximal to the inner wall of the processing duct; said impeller being shaped so that a volume contained between two adjacent one of the blades and the inner wall portion interposed therebetween is substantially free, except for a layer of material to be extruded spread on said inner wall. {Column 2 Lines 26-29, "agitating blades which extend radially and are inclined to the horizontal to spread the material as a film on the inner peripheral wall" and Figure 2 reference (84)}
In regards to claim 5, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 1, wherein the supply section and the release section have respective substantially cylindrical shapes having different diameters, {Abstract, "and a smaller diameter lower body section"} said processing duct further having a variable-diameter connecting section interposed between the supply section and the release section. {Column 3 Lines 11-14, "lower part of the vessel 48 includes an inverted frusto-conical section, 62, terminating in a cylindrical section 64"}
In regards to claim 6, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 5, wherein the upper portion of the shaft and the impeller extend along at least one stretch of the connecting section. {Column 3 Lines 18-19, "upper shaft 76 extends coaxially with the vessel 48"}
In regards to claim 7, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 6, wherein the impeller include: a first portion extending entirely in the supply section; {Column 3 Lines 22-25, "helical blades 82 is fixed coaxially to the shaft 76 at the level of the liquid inlet 52"} a second portion extending at least partly in the connecting section; {Column 3 Lines 29-30, "inside the frusto-conical section 62, a number of radial angled scraping blades 86"} wherein a first group of the blades are positioned entirely in the first portion {Column 3 Lines 22-25, "helical blades 82 is fixed coaxially to the shaft 76 at the level of the liquid inlet 52"} and a second group of the blades are positioned at least partly in the second portion; {Column 3 Lines 29-30, "inside the frusto-conical section 62, a number of radial angled scraping blades 86"} and wherein the second group of blades of the second portion have a different shape and/or size with respect to the blades of the first group of blades. {Figure 2 References (82) & (86)}
In regards to claim 8, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 1, and further comprising thermo-regulating means {Column 2 Lines 31-32, "heating means"} coupled to the tubular body and active at least on the supply section to regulate a temperature of the material to be extruded. {Column 3 Lines 6-10,"a heating medium to flow through space 54, so that the inner peripheral surface of section 50 serves as a heating surface for evaporation and keeping warm"}
In regards to claim 10, Yamasaki teaches the station according to claim 1, and further comprising at least one suction unit {Column 2 Lines 52-54, "section 50 has a vapor outlet 51… connected to a vacuum source} configured to suck said volatile compounds from the processing duct. {Column 4 Lines 12-13, "the vapor is discharged through the outlet 51"}
They do not teach:
Claim 1: That the impeller is rotatable around said central axis independently of the shaft.
However, Amedee teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 that Yamasaki does not teach.
In regards to claim 1, Amedee teaches that the impeller is rotatable around said central axis independently of the shaft. {Column 3 Lines 50-56, "sleeve 8 is another bearing schematically indicated at 46, and serving to journal the rotor shaft 7 for rotation both relative to the sleeve 8 and member 3" As started in the response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments, while Amedee may not teach an impeller, it teaches the shaft in which the impeller of Yamasaki is attached to.}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the shaft rotational capabilities of Amedee to the invention of Yamasaki because these two inventions both have similar functions, which is to improve the device and process for the extrusion of molten materials, while removing impurities within the material to be extruded. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Amedee to Yamasaki because the ability to independent select velocities of the shafts, as Amedee discloses, will improve the control and improve the operation of the machine. {Amedee, Lines 15-33}
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (EP0410558A2) and Amedee (US3300811A), in view of Silvi (WO0146299A2), in further view of Sawaya (JPWO2019163637A1). *Note all teachings and mappings from Sawaya are based on the attached, English, machine-translated version.
The combination of Yamasaki and Amedee teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 1-2, 4-8 and 10; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
They do not teach:
Claim 3: The station according to claim 2, wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the impeller with a rotation speed between 100 and 500 rpm and to move the shaft with a rotation speed between 8 and 100 rpm.
However, Silvi and Sawaya teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 3 that the combination of Yamasaki and Amedee does not teach.
In regards to claim 3, Silvi teaches the station according to claim 2, wherein the actuator unit is configured to move the impeller with a rotation speed between 100 and 500 rpm. {Page 11 Lines 15-17, "screw speed between about 100 rpm and about 1000 rpm"}
In regards to claim 3, Sawaya teaches to move the shaft with a rotation speed between 8 and 100 rpm. {Middle page 16, "the screw rotation speed … 5 rpm to 100 rpm"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the experimental parameters (rotational speed) of Silvi and Sawaya, to the combined invention of Yamasaki and Amedee because these inventions similarly appear to have the same function, utilizing a similar heating extrusion device to remove impurities for a more efficient extrusion process. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Yamasaki discloses that the shaft may be rotated at varying speeds {Yamasaki, Column 4 Lines 35-38}, however Yamasaki does not disclose specific parameters. Given that the function of the devices for combination are the similar, and disclose to be improvements over other art, one would be motivated to utilize the rotational speeds that are taught by Silvi and Sawaya.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (EP0410558A2) and Amedee (US3300811A), in view of Ackermann (JPWO2019163637A1).
The combination of Yamasaki and Amedee teach all of the limitations of claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10; as mentioned in a prior 103 rejection.
In regards to claim 11, Yamasaki further teaches an extrusion plant comprising: {Column 1 Lines 1-6, "a film evaporator … by evaporating and removing solvents … from viscous liquids such as high-polymer resins" and Column 4 Lines 22-23, "the residue is extruded"} at least one outlet station configured to convey the material to be extruded, in a molten or softened state, to further processing processes; {Col. 3 Lines 9-10, "frusto-conical section 62 terminating in a cylindrical section 64, which has a residue outlet 66" Given the outlet 66 is pictured with an arrow to transfer the molten residue into another location, it is obvious to one of reasonable skill in the art, that anything next to happen with the plastic would be considered further processing} and the centrifugation station according to claim 1 interposed between the at least one supply station and the at least one outlet station. {Fig. 2 Between references (52) & (56)}
They do not teach:
Claim 11: The at least one supply station configured to receive a material to be extruded in loose form.
However, Ackermann teaches all of the limitations of claim(s) 11 that the combination of Yamasaki and Amedee does not teach.
In regards to claim 11, Ackermann teaches the at least one supply station configured to receive a material to be extruded in loose form. {Paragraph 86, "the hooper 3 … is filled with a solid, thermoplastically processable material … it is heated from outside to a temperature above its melting point by heating elements 10"}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the form of the feed material of Ackermann to the combined invention of Yamasaki and Amedee because Ackermann teaches a similar plastic extrusion process of the combined invention of Yamasaki and Amedee. One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to combine Ackermann to Yamasaki and Amedee because Ackermann has removed the need for pre-processing of plastic material, as Yamasaki needed a liquid input to function {Column 1 Lines 28-29}, while Ackermann can use pellets or powder forms of material.
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 CONNOR J ROTONDI whose telephone number is (571)272-2058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/CONNOR J ROTONDI/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights