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
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed March 3, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 6 are currently amended. Claims 9-12 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-8 are under examination.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-9 of copending Application No. 18/618,686 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘686 application claims a device for processing plastics material, comprising a screw machine having at least one treatment element shaft for plasticizing the plastics material, stored in a housing, to form a polymer melt, wherein the screw machine has a plasticizing zone, a compounding zone, and an accumulation zone arranged between the plasticizing zone and the compounding zone, having at least one accumulation element which holds the polymer melt, at least one melt channel which bridges the accumulation zone and connects the plasticizing zone and the compounding zone to one another, and at least one melt filter device for filtering the polymer melt which is arranged in the melt channel.
In the ‘686 application, claim 1 recites “a screw machine having at least one treatment element shaft” while the instant claims require “a multi-shaft screw machine”. The number of shafts in the ‘686 application encompasses or overlaps the claimed number of shafts and renders the limitation prima facie obvious. Further, claim 8 of the ‘686 application explicitly claims multiple screws. Further, claim 1 of the ‘686 application claims the shaft is “stored in the housing” while claim 1 of the instant application claims the shafts are “mounted”. However, the language that the shaft(s) are “stored in the housing” of the ‘686 claim is understood to implicitly, if not intrinsically, suggest or require “mounting” of the shaft(s) because otherwise the screw machine of the device set forth in claim 1 of the ‘686 application would not be able to function as recited, as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize. Additionally, claim 1 of the ‘686 application utilizes different nomenclature, but the different nomenclature does not necessarily result in a different structure. The ‘686 application claims “a compounding zone”. This compounding zone corresponds with the instantly claimed “discharge zone” absent further specificity. Further, claim 1 of the ‘686 application claims “an accumulation zone”. This accumulation zone corresponds with the instantly claimed “backup zone” absent further specificity.
As to the limitation that the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone (which corresponds to the compounding zone in the ‘686 claims) are directly connected, the plasticizing zone and the discharge/compounding zone in the ‘686 claims are connected to each other via a melt channel that bridges the accumulation zone/backup zone. The word “directly” is not recited in the ‘686 claims. However, the ‘686 claims explicitly claim that the same/corresponding zones are connected to one another. Since the zones are connected, they are either connected directly or indirectly. Selection of one or the other manners of connecting, within the context of the claims, is understood to be prima facie obvious. There are two choices and the selection of either is understood to be prima facie obvious absent further specificity or evidence of new or unexpected results. Further, if forced to choose between one or the other, in the context of the claims, a recitation that the zones are connected most straightforwardly suggests they are directly connected since this is the most common way such terms are utilized. It is submitted that there is no patentably distinct structural difference currently recited between the claimed inventions. Different nomenclature has been utilized, but the scopes are still understood to overlap significantly absent further clarity and specificity. One can visually observe structural differences between the Figures in each of the applications; however, these differences have not been explicitly or clearly set forth in the claims in a manner to obviate a conclusion that the claims overlap in scope and that the provisional rejection remains proper.
As to claims 2-8, claims 2-4 and 6-9 of the ‘686 application claim the same limitations with the same differences in nomenclature understood to be in view.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolossow (US 6,074,084).
Regarding claim 1, Kolossow teaches a device for processing plastics material, comprising (Abstract; col. 1, lines 17-24; col. 3, lines 27-32) a multi-shaft screw machine, in particular a twin-shaft screw machine, having at least two treatment element shafts mounted in a housing for plasticizing the plastics material to form a plastics melt ((Figure 1 (19) (21) (22) (24) (26) (27) (29) (30) (31); col. 2, lines 53-60; col. 7, lines 36-55; col. 8, lines 45-57; col. 11, lines 30-47; col. 13, line 58-col. 14, line 7), wherein the multi-shaft screw machine has a plasticizing zone (Figure 1, zone (III) alone or zones (I)-(III) taken together are reasonably understood to form the claimed plasticizing zone; col. 3, lines 18-25 and 33-40; col. 8, lines 31-37), a discharge zone (Figure 1, zone (V) alone or zone (V) and the further downstream zones taken together are reasonably understood to form the claimed discharge zone; in particular, zones (V)-(VIII) taken together are reasonably understood to form the claimed discharge zone), and a backup zone arranged between the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone, having at least one backup element which holds back the plastics melt (Figure 1, shut-off zone (IV) includes blister (23) which blocks/holds back the plastic melt and diverts it to pump (11) through channel/melt pipe (12); col. 7, lines 1-10; col. 8, line 38; col. 9, lines 13-29) at least one melt channel which bridges across the backup zone, connecting the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone directly to one another (Figure 1, channel/melt pipe (12) leads from extruder zone (III) to pump (11) and the outlet of the pump includes channel/melt pipe (13) which leads back into the extruder directly into the discharge zone, which is either understood to be zone (V) itself, or even more clearly, zones (V)-(VIII) taken together; col. 9, lines 13-29) and at least one melt filter device for filtering the plastics melt, arranged and active in the melt channel (col. 9, lines 24-29; col. 10, lines 60-65).
As to claim 2, Kolossow teaches an outlet into the melt channel leading to the melt filter device is provided in the housing immediately before the backup zone, and in that an inlet of the melt channel coming from the melt filter device is provided in the housing immediately after the backup zone (Figure 1 (11) (12) and (13)).
As to claim 3, Kolossow teaches the filter is arranged in front of the pump (11) and includes a sieve changing device in the melt pipe (col. 9, lines 24-29) to extend the service life of the pump. This necessarily includes an ability to operate either continuously or discontinuously (e.g. continuously or discontinuously are the two options).
As to claim 4, Kolossow teaches gear pump (11) (Figure 1; col. 9, lines 22-24), which is a pressure building gear pump/melt pump (col. 2, lines 31-42; col. 4, lines 6-18).
As to claim 7, Kolossow teaches the multi-shaft screw machine is a twin-screw extruder (col. 7, lines 36-55; col. 11, lines 30-47; col. 13, line 58-col. 14, line 7).
As to claim 8, Kolossow teaches a discharge opening to discharge the plastics melt (Figure 1 (IX)) and an extrusion head (col. 14, lines 52-59).
Claims 1-4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uphus (DE 10 2004 007479).
Regarding claim 1, Uphus teaches a device for processing plastics material, comprising (paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0010] and [0021]) a multi-shaft screw machine, in particular a twin-shaft screw machine, having at least two treatment element shafts mounted in a housing for plasticizing the plastics material to form a plastics melt (Figures 1 and 2 (1); paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0023], and [0025]), wherein the multi-shaft screw machine has a plasticizing zone (Figures 1 and 2 (2’); paragraphs [0014], [0023], [0024]), a discharge zone (Figures 1 and 2, downstream of 3’ where (5) re-enters the extruder; paragraphs [0014], [0023], [0024]), and a backup zone arranged between the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone, having at least one backup element which holds back the plastics melt (Figures 1 and 2 (4) is a sealing device located in what is understood to be a backup zone arranged as claimed that blocks/holds back the material in the extruder and directs it to bypass (5); paragraphs [0013], [0023] and [0024]) at least one melt channel which bridges across the backup zone, connecting the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone directly to one another (Figure 2 (5); paragraphs [0013], [0023], [0024]) and at least one melt filter device/sieve for filtering the plastics melt, arranged and active in the melt channel (paragraphs [0015], [0025]).
As to claim 2, Uphus teaches an outlet into the melt channel leading to the melt filter device is provided in the housing immediately before the backup zone, and in that an inlet of the melt channel coming from the melt filter device is provided in the housing immediately after the backup zone (Figure 2 (5) (6) and (7)).
As to claim 3, Uphus teaches the filter/sieve is arranged downstream of a gear pump (paragraph [0015]). This necessarily includes an ability to operate either continuously or discontinuously (e.g. continuously or discontinuously are the two options).
As to claim 4, Uphus teaches a gear pump, which is a pressure building gear pump/melt pump (paragraphs [0015], [0025]).
As to claim 7, Uphus teaches the multi-shaft screw machine is a twin-screw extruder (Figures 1 and 2 (1); paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0023], and [0025]).
As to claim 8, Uphus teaches a discharge opening to discharge the plastics melt, such as a spray head, injection head, or slot nozzle (paragraphs [0010] and [0016]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolossow (US 6,074,084), as applied to claims 1-4, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Schulz (US 2010/0034917).
As to claims 5 and 6, Kolossow teaches the device set forth above. Kolossow does not explicitly teach utilizing a degassing opening connected to a degassing device, such as a vacuum degassing device, or open for degassing or venting to the atmosphere as claimed. However, Schulz teaches an analogous device wherein degassing openings connected to a degassing device, such as a vacuum degassing device/pump, as claimed are utilized (Abstract; paragraphs [0008] and [0014]-[0016]; Figure 1 (8) -degassing vent/degassing opening; (10) – degassing opening vent; (11) – vacuum pump connected to vent (10)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kolossow and Schulz and to have utilized the degassing opening connecting to a degassing device, such as a vacuum pump/degassing device, in the device of Kolossow, as suggested by Schulz, for the purpose, as suggested by Schulz, of removing gases (e.g. water vapor) from the plastic melt.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uphus (DE 10 2004 007479), as applied to claims 1-4, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Schulz (US 2010/0034917).
As to claims 5 and 6, Uphus teaches the device set forth above. Uphus does not explicitly teach utilizing a degassing opening connected to a degassing device, such as a vacuum degassing device, or open for degassing or venting to the atmosphere as claimed. However, Schulz teaches an analogous device wherein degassing openings connected to a degassing device, such as a vacuum degassing device/pump, as claimed are utilized (Abstract; paragraphs [0008] and [0014]-[0016]; Figure 1 (8) -degassing vent/degassing opening; (10) – degassing opening vent; (11) – vacuum pump connected to vent (10)).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Uphus and Schulz and to have utilized the degassing opening connecting to a degassing device, such as a vacuum pump/degassing device, in the device of Uphus, as suggested by Schulz, for the purpose, as suggested by Schulz, of removing gases (e.g. water vapor) from the plastic melt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the previous objection to claim 4 and the section 112b rejections. As such, the claim objection and 112b rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s other arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
As to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, applicant argues the rejection has been overcome because the ‘686 claims do not recite all the features of the presently amended claims. The examiner concludes this argument is directed to the requirement now in the amended claims that the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone are directly connected to one another and that the ‘686 claims do not utilize the word directly. This argument is not persuasive.
As to the limitation that the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone (which corresponds to the compounding zone in the ‘686 claims) are directly connected, the plasticizing zone and the discharge/compounding zone in the ‘686 claims are connected to each other via a melt channel that bridges the accumulation zone/backup zone. The word “directly” is not recited in the ‘686 claims. However, the ‘686 claims explicitly claim that the same/corresponding zones are connected to one another. Since the zones are connected, they are either connected directly or indirectly. Selection of one or the other manners of connecting, within the context of the claims, is understood to be prima facie obvious. There are two choices and the selection of either is understood to be prima facie obvious absent further specificity in the claimed language and absent evidence of new or unexpected results. Further, if forced to choose between one or the other, in the context of the claims, a recitation that the zones are connected most straightforwardly suggests they are directly connected since this is the most common way such terms are utilized. It is submitted that there is no patentably distinct structural difference currently recited between the claimed inventions. Different nomenclature has been utilized, but the scopes are still understood to overlap significantly absent further clarity and specificity. One can visually observe structural differences between the Figures in each of the applications; however, these differences have not been explicitly or clearly set forth in the claims in a manner to obviate a conclusion that the claims overlap in scope and that the provisional rejection remains proper.
As to the prior art rejections, applicant argues the relied upon references do not teach or suggest the plasticizing zone and the discharge zone are connected to one another “directly”. This argument is not persuasive. Generally, the examiner submits that the argument relies upon a narrower interpretation of the scope than what has been structurally set forth as limitations in the claims. The claims remain open to a broad reasonable interpretation and it is improper for the examiner to read limitations from the specification into the claims. The differences at this point, absent further specificity in the claims, are understood to be merely differences in nomenclature.
In each of the prior art references, the portion of the extruder that is downstream of the backup zone and where the melt channel is reintroduced into the screw is reasonably understood to be considered the claimed “discharge zone”. As such, the zones are directly connected to each other. While there may conceivably be other structures in the prior art than those shown in the instant Figure 1 and the relied upon prior art may use different language or include additional treatments/steps within the extruder, these have not been avoided by the claimed language. It appears that applicant may have particular limitations in mind, but these have not been claimed. For example, if applicant intends that only certain screw elements are found in the extruder and that other elements are not allowed, beginning immediately downstream of the backup zone and continuing all the way to the outlet/die/nozzle of the extruder, these have not been claimed.
As a further example for clarification about the difference being merely nomenclature differences, in the instant application, zone (148) in Figure 1 is identified as the discharge zone in the specification. However, it would have been just as reasonable for the portion of the extruder labeled (124) or (182) to be considered the discharge zone. Further still, it would have been reasonable for the portion of the extruder between the backup zone (146) and the degassing device (176), to be called a “degassing zone” and the portion of the extruder downstream of degassing device (176) and continuing to (182) to be considered the “discharge zone”. The words are different, but the scope is the same. As the claims remain open to a broad reasonable interpretation and it is improper for the examiner to read limitations from the specification into the claims, it follows that the claim is not limited to precisely what is shown in Figure 1.
Using applicant’s arguments as a basis for comparison to further establish the point, if an identical device/figure as that shown in Figure 1 was found in the prior art, but instead of calling zone (148) the “discharge zone”, the theoretical prior art reference called the portion of the extruder between the backup zone (146) and the degassing device (176), a “degassing zone” and called the portion of the extruder downstream of degassing device (176) and continuing to (182) a “discharge zone”, applicant could make the same argument that has been set forth. The argument could say that the theoretical prior art directly connects the plasticizing zone and the “degassing zone” and does not directly connect the plasticizing zone and the “discharge zone”. Based on the differences in language, the argument would be accurate. However, as can be seen, the exact same structure is being claimed and the argument would not overcome the rejection.
This same understanding, to the extent it reasonably applies (i.e. it is acknowledged the prior art does not look exactly like Figure 1), is considered to be true when comparing the applied prior art and the instant claims. Merely because the prior art uses different nomenclature, and there are visible differences between the prior art configurations and the configuration shown in Figure 1, there are no structural differences claimed under a reasonable interpretation. Again, it is improper for the examiner to read limitations from the specification into the claims.
More specifically, to the extent it may be necessary to explain, Kolossow discloses a zone (IV) which corresponds with the claimed backup zone. Upstream of this zone, zone (III) alone or zones (I)-(III) or even zones (II) and (III) are reasonably understood to form the claimed plasticizing zone. Downstream of zone (IV), zone (V) is reasonably understood to be a discharge zone, if needed. Even more reasonably, and as preliminarily set forth above in the previous 5 paragraphs, zones (V)-(VIII) taken together are reasonably understood to form the claimed discharge zone. The rationale for taking this position is the same as that set forth in the previous 5 paragraphs. While the Kolossow reference happens to call zone (VIII) a “discharge zone”, this does not mean that the only way Kolossow could be appropriately applied is if the corresponding melt channel directly discharged into zone (VIII). To require that would be to let nomenclature overrule structure. It is submitted that the appropriateness of this rationale is evident and that the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the teaching of Kolossow.
Similarly, the location where the material of Uphus enters back into the extruder is reasonably understood to be a discharge zone absent further specificity. Further, Uphus includes a melt filter device for filtering the melt as set forth above. Applicant may have a different filter in mind, based on the argument regarding the filtering being “sufficient”. However, no additional structure has been set forth to differentiate the amount or sufficiency of filtering achieved by any supposed differences in the filters. The claims would need to be further amended to overcome the teaching of Uphus.
As to the secondary references, they are utilized only to the extent set forth in the rejection. They are not utilized to cure deficiencies found in the primary references and it is not agreed that such deficiencies are found in the primary references for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Schulz (US 2010/0310700; Figures 1 and 2), Bacher et al. (US 2001/0040837), Beckwith (US 6,206,558, Figure 1), Schulz et al. (US 5,651,944, Figures 1-7), Bacher et al. (US 5,419,634, Figure 1), Schippers (US 3,360,824, Figure 6), and Edwards (US 3,193,877, Figure 1) disclose analogous screw extruders including a bridge/bypass with a melt filter arranged in the channel of the bridge/bypass. Additionally, each of Bacher et al. (US 2006/0292259; paragraphs [0010] and [0016]) and Feichtinger et al. (US 2014/0287081; paragraph [0032]) disclose analogous twin screw extruders.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742