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 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noh (US 2022/0126496).
Noh (US 2022/0126496) teaches an internal mixing extruder (fig. 1), comprising:
an internal mixing mechanism 110, wherein the internal mixing mechanism 110 comprises a mixing chamber (chamber of cylinder 111), the mixing chamber comprises a rear end provided with a first feed port 114, and a front end provided with a first discharge port (not labeled but shown in fig. 1 connected to the pipe 130), and a rotor 112 is provided in the mixing chamber along a front-rear direction (fig. 1);
an extrusion mechanism 120 located below the internal mixing mechanism 110, wherein the
extrusion mechanism 120 comprises an extruding chamber (chamber of cylinder 121), the extruding chamber comprises a rear end provided with a second feed port (not labeled but shown in fig. 1 connected to the pipe 130), and a front end provided with a mold 140, and a screw 122 is
provided in the extruding chamber along the front-rear direction (fig. 1); and
a hopper 130, wherein the hopper is connected between the first discharge port and the second
feed port, wherein, along a vertical axis, the hopper 130 is below a portion of the rotor 112 in the mixing
chamber and is above a portion of the screw 122 (fig. 1; [0021]-[0024]);
(Claim 8) wherein the screw 122 refers to conical twin screws, a single screw or parallel twin screws ([0023], a second screw 122 (i.e., a single screw)).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of Fukui et al. (US 5,672,005).
Noh (US 2022/0126496) discloses the internal mixing extruder substantially as
claimed as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claims 2 and 4-5.
As to claim 2, Fukui et al. IS 5,672,005) disclose an internal mixing mechanism (fig. 12)
including a mixing chamber (fig. 12), and a rotor in the mixing chamber (fig. 12), wherein the rotor is a
double-kneading structure (col. 6, lines 19-22, single or double kneading); the rotor comprises a rotor
shaft (fig. 12); and a material conveying segment 10A, a first mixing segment 11A, a first helical segment
10B, a second mixing segment 11B, and a first discharge segment (segment adjacent a discharge outlet
15) are arranged sequentially on the rotor shaft (fig. 12; col. 1, line 17 to col. 2, line 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the rotor of Noh (US 2022/0126496) with a rotor, as disclosed by Fukui et
al. (US 5,672,005), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative
configuration for the rotor known to be operable in the art.
As to claims 4-5, Fukui et al. (US 5,672,005) disclose an internal mixing mechanism (fig. 8)
including a mixing chamber (fig. 8), and a rotor in the mixing chamber (fig. 8),
(Claim 4) wherein the rotor (fig. 8) is a single-kneading structure (col. 6, lines 19-22, single or
double kneading); the rotor comprises a rotor shaft (fig. 8); and a material conveying segment 10A, a mixing segment 11A, and a discharge segment 11B (segment adjacent a discharge outlet 15) are
arranged sequentially on the rotor shaft (fig. 8);
(Claim 5) wherein a helical segment 10B is further provided between the mixing segment 11A
and the discharge segment 11B (fig. 8; col. 1, line 17 to col. 6, line 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the rotor of Noh (US 2022/0126496) with a rotor, as disclosed by Fukui et
al. US 5,672,005), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative
configuration for the rotor known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of Inoue et al. US 5,947,593).
Noh (US 2022/0126496) discloses the internal mixing extruder substantially as
claimed as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claim 3.
Inoue et al. (US 5,947,593) disclose an internal mixing mechanism (fig. 12; col. 10, line 54, to col.
12, line 34) including a mixing chamber 24, and a rotor in the mixing chamber 24 (fig. 12), wherein the
rotor is a double-kneading structure (col. 10, lines 13-18, two (double) screw set or single); the rotor
comprises a rotor shaft (fig. 12); and a material conveying segment (segment adjacent hopper 32), a first
mixing segment (fig. 12, most upstream rotor segment 21b), a first helical segment (fig. 12, screw
segment 21a downstream of the first mixing segment), a second mixing segment (fig. 12, rotor segment
downstream of the first helical segment), and a first discharge segment (fig. 12; segment adjacent the
discharge end) are arranged sequentially on the rotor shaft (fig. 12);
wherein a second helical segment (fig. 12, screw segment 21a downstream of the second mixing
element and upstream of the first discharge segment) is further provided between the second mixing
segment and the first discharge segment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the rotor of Noh (US 2022/0126496) with a rotor, as disclosed by Inoue et
al. (US 5,947,593), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative
configuration for the rotor known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948).
Noh (US 2022/0126496) discloses the internal mixing extruder substantially as claimed as mentioned above, except for the limitations of claim 6.
Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948) teaches an internal mixing extruder (figs. 17-18; [0005]- [0015]), comprising:
a hopper (fig. 17, not labeled but shown as the structure defining chamber 5), wherein a forced feeding device 921 is provided in the hopper (fig. 17); the forced feeding device 921 comprises two parallel rotating shafts; a blade is provided on each of the two parallel rotating shafts; and the two parallel rotating shafts rotate relatively ([0008], a pair (two) of right and left feed rollers 921 similar to those (921) of introduction portion 93; figs. 17-18 show two parallel rotating shafts for the feed rollers 921, 931; fig. 18 shows a blade (sharp projections) provided on each of the two parallel rotating shafts; fig. 18 shows rotation arrows for the rotating parallel shafts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the hopper of Noh (US 2022/0126496), wherein a forced feeding device is provided in the hopper; the forced feeding device comprises two parallel rotating shafts; a blade is provided on each of the two parallel rotating shafts; and the two parallel rotating shafts rotate relatively, as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the hopper capable of force feeding.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Neubauer (US 2007/0109911).
Noh (US 2022/0126496) and Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948) do not disclose the limitations of claim 7
Neubauer (US 2007/0109911) discloses an extrusion apparatus including two parallel rotating
shafts, wherein the two parallel rotating shafts 210, 215 are respectively driven by a driving gear 290A
and a driven gear 290B, and the driving gear 290A and the driven gear 290B are engaged to each other
(fig. 2B; [0020]-[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the two parallel rotating shafts to be respectively driven by a driving gear and a driven gear, and the driving gear and the driven gear are engaged to each other, as disclosed by Neubauer (US 2007/0109911), because such means for rotating two parallel rotating shafts are known in the extrusion art and would enable rotation of the parallel shafts as desired by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2002/0036948).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of McCormick et al. (US 3,605,188).
This is an alternative rejection of claim 8 which reads on the conical twin screws of claim 8.
Noh (US 2022/0126496) disclose the internal mixing extruder substantially as
claimed as mentioned above, except for the conical twin screws of claim 8.
McCormick et al. (US 3,605,188) discloses an extrusion mechanism including conical twin screws
13, 14 (figs. 1-3; col. 1, line 69, to col. 2, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the screw of Noh (US 2022/0126496) with conical twin screws, as disclosed
by McCormick et al. US 3,605,188), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide
an alternative configuration for the screw known to be operable in the art.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0126496) in view of Munz et al. (US 2007/0104814).
This is an alternative rejection of claim 8 which reads on the parallel twin screws of claim 8.
Noh (US 2022/0126496) disclose the internal mixing extruder substantially as
claimed as mentioned above, except for the parallel twin screws of claim 8.
Munz et al. (US 2007/0104814) discloses an extrusion mechanism including parallel twin screws
23, 24 (figs. 1-5; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the screw of Noh (US 2022/0126496) with parallel twin screws, as
disclosed by Munz et al. (US 2007/0104814), because such a modification is known in the art and would
provide an alternative configuration for the screw known to be operable in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/700,720 in view of Noh (US 2022/0126496).
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/700,720 substantially disclosed the claimed apparatus, except for wherein, along a vertical axis, the hopper is below a portion of the rotor in the mixing chamber and is above a portion of the screw.
Noh (US 2022/0126496) is applied as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/700,720, wherein, along a vertical axis, the hopper is below a portion of the rotor in the mixing chamber and is above a portion of the screw, as disclosed by Noh (US 2022/0126496), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus known to be operable in the art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art cited in the prior office action does not disclose the limitations of wherein, along a vertical axis, the hopper is below a portion of the rotor in the mixing chamber and is above a portion of the screw.
The Examiner agrees. However, such limitations are disclosed by Noh (US 2022/0126496) as mentioned above.
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 JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744