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
In view of the amendment, filed on July 28th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on April 28th, 2026.
Objections of claims 1, 4 and 7 due to minor informalities
Claim interpretation of “at least one cooling device” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Rejections of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Rejections of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Rejections of claims 2, 3, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “at least one delivery device for feeding the material to be plasticized” which includes the structural generic placeholder of “at least one delivery device” associated with the functional limitation of “feeding the material to be plasticized”. The specification defines corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of "at least one delivery device" to include an external dosing unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama), in view of Houk (US 20140377396 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a plasticizing unit (Fig. 2; [0011]) for a molding machine ([0037]; injection molding machine), the plasticizing unit comprising:
a barrel (Fig. 2; [0039]; heating cylinder 11);
a degassing device (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77);
a plasticizing screw (Fig. 2; [0039]; screw 14) arranged in the barrel to be rotatably driveable (Fig. 2; [0039]; screw 14 can rotate and is driven by drive apparatus 22), the plasticizing screw being configured to plasticize a material to be plasticized ([0011, 0043]; molding material is melted, compressed and metered);
and a feeding device (Fig. 2; [0041]; resin supply apparatus 71) arranged on a lateral surface of the barrel (Fig. 2; [0041]; 71 is arranged on top lateral surface of 11), the feeding device being configured to feed the material to be plasticized into the barrel (Fig. 2; [0041]; 71 supplies molding material into 11 via resin supply port 25),
wherein the barrel has an opening (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77 connected to an opening in the heating cylinder 11),
and wherein the degassing device is configured to discharge gases generated during plasticization of the material to be plasticized from the barrel via the opening (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77).
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the plasticizing screw being inserted into the barrel through the opening, the opening being fluidically connected along a longitudinal axis of the barrel at an end of the barrel to the degassing device.
However, in the analogous art Houk teaches a plasticizing unit for a molding machine (Fig. 1; [0007]; extruder arrangement) comprising a barrel (Fig. 1; barrel liners 40, 440), a degassing device (Fig. 1; [0035]; a gas line 264 is connected to the vacuum opening 262 and is generally connected to a vacuum pump) and a plasticizing screw (Fig. 2; [0029]; screw element 300), wherein the barrel has an opening (Fig. 1, 2; [0029]; section of the barrel corresponding to vent block 100), the plasticizing screw being inserted into the barrel through the opening (Fig. 2; [0029]; screw element 300 is inserted into barrel through vent block 100), the opening being fluidically connected along a longitudinal axis of the barrel (Fig. 1; [0029]; vent block 100 lies along and is fluidically connected to the barrel) to the degassing device (Fig. 1; [0035]; vent block 100 is connected to vacuum pump via gas line 264). Houk further teaches the vent block 100 can be positioned in other or alternative locations along the barrel, such as a first stage corresponding to an end of the barrel ([0008]).
Sugiyama and Houk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of Sugiyama with the teachings of Houk to provide the plasticizing screw being inserted into the barrel through the opening, the opening being fluidically connected along a longitudinal axis of the barrel at an end of the barrel to the degassing device. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow gases to be removed when plasticizing highly viscous materials (Houk [0006]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses a dividing device (Marked Fig. 2; divider) dividing the feeding device into two sub-regions (Marked Fig. 2; regions to the left and right of divider) including a first sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; region to the left of the divider) configured to feed the material to be plasticized into the barrel (Marked Fig. 2; molding material is feed into 11 via resin supply port 25), and a second sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; region to the right of the divider) fluidically connected to the degassing device (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77), the dividing device comprising a partition plate (Marked Fig. 2; divider is a plate) configured to divide the feeding device into the two sub-regions (Marked Fig. 2; divider separates into left and right regions).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses the at least one feeding device has a filling funnel (Fig. 2; [0041]; funnel-shaped hopper 31).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses the opening of the barrel is fluidically connected to the degassing device via a suction line (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Houk further discloses the opening is fluidically connected to the degassing device such that the opening is covered (Fig. 1, 2; [0029]; vent block 100 is a covering).
Sugiyama and Houk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Houk to provide the opening is fluidically connected to the degassing device such that the opening is covered. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow gases to be removed when plasticizing highly viscous materials (Houk [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses the degassing device is configured to generate a negative pressure for degassing from the barrel, the degassing device comprising a conveying device (Fig. 2; [0046]; connection pipe 77 conveys evacuated gas to vacuum source).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses the plasticizing screw is mounted and drivable so as to be linearly displaceable in the barrel (Fig. 2; [0039]; screw 14 is disposed within the heating cylinder 11 such that the screw 14 can rotate and can advance and retreat).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sugiyama discloses the molding machine (Sugiyama [0037]; injection molding machine) comprising the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein Sugiyama further discloses a dividing device (Marked Fig. 2; divider) dividing the feeding device into two sub-regions (Marked Fig. 2; regions to the left and right of divider) including a first sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; region to the left of the divider) configured to feed the material to be plasticized into the barrel (Marked Fig. 2; molding material is feed into 11 via resin supply port 25), and a second sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; region to the right of the divider) fluidically connected to the degassing device (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 14, wherein Sugiyama further discloses the barrel is further fluidically connected to the degassing device via a suction line (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77) projecting into the second sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; [0046]; connection pipe 77 projects in region to the right of the divider).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 7, wherein Houk further discloses the opening is covered in a gas-tight manner ([0012]; partial or full airtight seal).
Sugiyama and Houk are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Houk to provide the opening is covered in a gas-tight manner. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow gases to be removed when plasticizing highly viscous materials (Houk [0006]).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama), in view of Houk (US 20140377396 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Klammer et al. (US 20210162643 A1; hereafter Klammer).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
While Sugiyama discloses a drive unit of the at least one plasticizing screw ([0039]), Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose a controller to control a delivery device for feeding the material to be plasticized via the at least one feeding device into the barrel and the drive unit.
However, in the analogous art Klammer teaches a plasticizing unit (Fig. 8a; [0120]; plasticizing unit 16) for an injection molding machine ([0005]), wherein the plasticizing unit has a plasticizing screw (Fig. 8a; [0122]; plasticizing screw 6), a drive unit (Fig. 8a; [0001, 0003]; plasticizing screw is rotatably displaced in the cylinder of the plasticizing unit and is rotatably driven) for the plasticizing screw, a feeding device (Fig. 8a; material is fed into plasticizing unit 16 via funnel) and a delivery device (Fig. 8a; [0076]; metering unit 10) for feeding material to be plasticized ([0076]; plastic granulate 7) into a barrel of the plasticizing unit via the feeding device (Fig. 8a; [0076]; metering unit 10 feeds plastic granulate 7 into barrel 3 of plasticizing unit 16). Klammer further teaches a control device ([0098]; machine control system) for controlling the at least one delivery device ([0097-0098]; machine control system controls metering unit 10) and the drive unit ([0097-0098]; machine control system controls plasticizing screw speed).
Sugiyama and Klammer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Klammer to provide a controller to control a delivery device for feeding the material to be plasticized via the at least one feeding device into the barrel and the drive unit. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the degassing and conveying capabilities of the plasticizing unit to be optimized (Klammer [0136]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 2.
Modified Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the controller is further configured to underfeed the plasticizing screw.
However, Klammer further teaches the at least one control or regulating unit is configured to underfeed the at least one plasticizing screw ([0122]; material feed is controlled to be operated in underfed mode).
Sugiyama and Klammer are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Klammer to provide the controller is further configured to underfeed the plasticizing screw. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the degassing and conveying capabilities of the plasticizing unit to be optimized (Klammer [0136]).
Claims 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama), in view of Houk (US 20140377396 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 8 respectively, and further in view of Aoki et al. (US 5534204 A; hereafter Aoki).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device has a filter device.
However, in the analogous art Aoki teaches a plasticizing unit (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 2nd and 4th ¶) for an injection molding machine (Col. 4, 1st ¶), wherein the plasticizing unit has a vacuum degassing device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; arrangement in Figure 2 removes vaporized content from the molding material by vacuum) with a filter device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; filter 13).
Sugiyama and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the degassing device has a filter device. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow volatile and/or undesired components to be removed from the molding material and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device includes a separation device configured to separate liquid components from the gases discharged during the plasticizing.
However, in the analogous art Aoki teaches a plasticizing unit (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 2nd and 4th ¶) for an injection molding machine (Col. 4, 1st ¶), wherein the plasticizing unit has a vacuum degassing device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; arrangement in Figure 2 removes vaporized content from the molding material by vacuum) with a separation device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; filter 13).
Sugiyama and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the degassing device includes a separation device configured to separate liquid components from the gases discharged during the plasticizing. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow volatile and/or undesired components to be removed from the molding material and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device includes a cooler configured to cool the gases discharged during the plasticizing.
However, in the analogous art Aoki teaches a plasticizing unit (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 2nd and 4th ¶) for an injection molding machine (Col. 4, 1st ¶), wherein the plasticizing unit has a vacuum degassing device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; arrangement in Figure 2 removes vaporized content from the molding material by vacuum) with a cooling device for cooling gases removed from plasticizing unit (Fig. 2; Col. 5th ¶; cooling vaporized content from the molding material).
Sugiyama and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the degassing device includes a cooler configured to cool the gases discharged during the plasticizing. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow volatile and/or undesired components to be removed from the molding material and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 8.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the conveying device comprises a fan, a compressor, and/or a condenser.
However, in the analogous art Aoki teaches a plasticizing unit (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 2nd and 4th ¶) for an injection molding machine (Col. 4, 1st ¶), wherein the plasticizing unit has at least one plasticizing screw (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 2nd ¶; injection screw) inserted into a barrel (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 2nd ¶; heating cylinder 1) and a vacuum degassing device (Fig. 2; Col. 4, 5th ¶; arrangement in Figure 2 removes vaporized content from the molding material by vacuum) in fluidic connection with the barrel and the space inside the barrel where the at least plasticizing screw is inserted (Fig. 2). The vacuum degassing device has a cooling device for cooling gases removed from plasticizing unit (Fig. 2; Col. 5th ¶; cooling vaporized content from the molding material). From these teachings of Aoki, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that it is desirable to fluidically connect the plasticizing screw to the vacuum degassing means for the purposes of removing volatile and/or undesired components (Col. 2, Ln. 7). These volatile and/or undesired components are conveyed away using a condenser (Fig. 10; vacuum circuit 10 cools the gases discharged and is therefore a condenser).
Sugiyama and Aoki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the conveying device comprises a condenser. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow volatile and/or undesired components to be removed from the molding material and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama), in view of Houk (US 20140377396 A1) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Guntherberg et al. (US 20060034962 A1; hereafter Guntherberg).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 4.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the partition plate is a perforated plate.
However, in the analogous art Guntherberg teaches a plasticizing unit for a molding machine ([0018]), wherein a perforate plate ([0026]; finely perforated metal sheet) divides a degassing device ([0026]; finely perforated metal sheet covers devolatilization orifice) from a barrel ([0029]) having a feeding device ([0038]; feed section).
Sugiyama and Guntherberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Guntherberg to provide the partition plate is a perforated plate. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would alleviate high pressures during plasticization processing (Guntherberg [0026]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama), in view of Houk (US 20140377396 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kopernicky (US 4636084 A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device includes a separation device configured to separate liquid components from the gases discharged during the plasticizing.
However, in the analogous art Kopernicky teaches a plasticizing unit for a molding machine (Fig. 1; Col. 1, 1st ¶; plasticizer for injection molding machine) comprising a degassing device (Col. 5, 1st ¶; suction to remove volatiles, such as gases), wherein the degassing device includes a separation device (Col. 5, 3rd ¶; cyclone type separator) configured to separate liquid components from gases discharged during plasticizing (Col. 5, 3rd ¶; cyclone type separators are capable of removing liquid components from gases).
Sugiyama and Kopernicky are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plasticizing devices for injection molding machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the plasticizing unit of modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Kopernicky to provide the degassing device for separating liquid components from the gases discharged from the plasticizing has at least one separation device. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). Doing so would allow volatile and/or undesired components to be removed from the molding material and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Kopernicky Col. 1, 1st ¶).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 10, wherein Kopernicky further discloses the separation device comprises a cyclone separator (Col. 5, 3rd ¶).
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 Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
