DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “which screw” should say “wherein the at least one plasticizing screw” for claim language consistency.
Claim 1, line 6, “which feeding device” should say “wherein the at least one feeding device” for claim language consistency.
Claim 3, line 2, “the plasticizing screw” should say “the at least one plasticizing screw” for claim language consistency.
Claim 4, line 3, “the two sub-regions” should say “the first and second sub-regions” for claim language consistency.
Claim 7, line 2, “the opening through which opening the at least one…” should say “the opening through which opening the at least one…” for claim language consistency.
Claim 11, lines 2-3, “which at least one cooling device” should say “wherein the at least one cooling device” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites optional limitations with the recitation of “and/or” in line 11. As such, dependent claims 4, 6 and 7, which depend on these optional limitations, are conditional and may not be required to be taught by the prior art based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least one cooling device is designed to cool the gases discharged from the plasticizing” which includes the structural generic placeholder of “at least one cooling device” associated with the functional limitation of “to cool the gases discharged from the plasticizing”. The specification fails to provide corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of "at least one cooling device".
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the longitudinal axis of the barrel” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a partition plate, preferably a perforated plate” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “preferably projects into the second sub-region” in lines 2-3. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “preferably in a gas-tight manner” in lines 3-4. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “preferably which at least one conveying device comprises…” in lines 3-5. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the plasticizing” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “which preferably comprises…” in lines 3-5. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “in particular an injection molding machine” in line 1. The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Furthermore, if the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, then a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “a molding machine”, and the claim also recites “an injection molding machine” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
The dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim limitation “at least one cooling device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for the at least one cooling device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama discloses a plasticizing unit (Fig. 2; [0011]) for a molding machine ([0037]; injection molding machine), comprising:
at least one plasticizing screw (Fig. 2; [0039]; screw 14) arranged in a barrel (Fig. 2; [0039]; heating cylinder 11) so as to be rotatably driveable (Fig. 2; [0039]; screw 14 can rotate and is driven by drive apparatus 22), wherein the at least one plasticizing screw is designed to plasticize a material to be plasticized ([0011, 0043]; molding material is melted, compressed and metered);
and at least one 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), wherein the at least one feeding device is designed 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 a dividing device (Marked Fig. 2; divider) is provided which divides the at least one feeding device into two sub-regions (Marked Fig. 2; regions to the left and right of divider), wherein a first sub-region (Marked Fig. 2; region to the left of the divider) is designed 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) is fluidically connected to a degassing device (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77),
and wherein the degassing device is designed to discharge gases generated during plasticization of the material to be plasticized from the barrel (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein the dividing device has a partition plate (Marked Fig. 2; divider is a plate), which divides the at least one feeding device into the first and second sub-regions (Marked Fig. 2; divider separates into left and right regions).
Regarding claim 5, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one feeding device has a filling funnel (Fig. 2; [0041]; funnel-shaped hopper 31).
Regarding claim 6, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein the fluidic connection has a suction line (Fig. 2; [0046]; evacuated gas is fed to an unillustrated vacuum source via a connection pipe 77).
Regarding claim 8, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein the degassing device for generating a negative pressure for degassing from the barrel comprises at least one conveying device (Fig. 2; [0046]; connection pipe 77 conveys evacuated gas to vacuum source).
Regarding claim 12, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1, wherein the at least one plasticizing screw is mounted and/or is 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, Sugiyama discloses the molding machine ([0037]; injection molding machine) with a plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama) as applied to claim 1, in view of Klammer et al. (US 20210162643 A1; hereafter Klammer).
Regarding claim 2, 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 at least one control or regulating device, which is designed to control or regulate: at least one 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 Sugiyama with the teachings of Klammer to provide at least one control or regulating device, which is designed to control or regulate: at least one 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 at least one control or regulating unit is configured to underfeed the at least one 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 modified Sugiyama with the teachings of Klammer to provide the at least one control or regulating unit is configured to underfeed the at least one 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 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US 20090194897 A1; hereafter Sugiyama) as applied to claim 1, in view of Aoki et al. (US 5534204 A; hereafter Aoki).
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the fluidic connection covers the opening through which opening the at least one plasticizing screw is inserted into the barrel.
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). 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).
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 Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the fluidic connection covers the opening through which opening the at least one plasticizing screw is inserted into the barrel. 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 being plasticized by the at least one plasticizing screw and therefore improve the quality of the injection molded products (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device has at least one 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 Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the degassing device has at least one 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, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device for separating liquid components from the gases discharged from the plasticizing has at least one separation 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 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 Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki 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 (Aoki Col. 2, Ln. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Sugiyama discloses the plasticizing unit according to claim 1.
Sugiyama does not explicitly disclose the degassing device has at least one cooling device, wherein the at least one cooling device is designed to cool the gases discharged from 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 Sugiyama with the teachings of Aoki to provide the degassing device has at least one cooling device, wherein the at least one cooling device is designed to cool the gases discharged from 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).
Conclusion
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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights