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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least eight (8) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 6 of claim 1, a colon “:” should be added after “that”.
The dashes “-” beginning each of lines 7, 9, and 13 of claim 1 should be deleted.
At line 1 of each of dependent claims 2-6, “Claim” should be changed to “claim”.
Appropriate correction of these issues by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at lines 4-5 of claim 1 whether “being configured in a feed region of the extruder housing” refers back to the previously recited support frame, filter element, or at least one housing portion. It is noted that claim 2 may clarify that reference is intended back to the “support frame”; in either case, this issue must be corrected, for example by adding the appropriate clarifying term(s) immediately prior to the line 4 term “being”.
The claim 1 provision of a “safety distance” between the protective layer and screw conflicts with the previous recitation that the protective layer is directed “against” the screw, leaving it unclear which of these conflicting limitations should be given weight over the other. If it is intended for the recitation “is directed against” to be construed instead as “facing”, then a fully supported amendment should be made to this effect.
It is unclear if or exactly how the claim 1 recitation of “the housing portion” (singular) in the 2nd to last line thereof relates back to the “at least one” housing portion (singular or plural) previously recited at line 3, in particular whether this subsequent recitation of only a single housing portion intends to further limit the at least one housing portion to only one thereof (in which case the same or similar broad-narrow indefiniteness issues set forth under MPEP § 2173.05(c) would apply), whether the single housing portion is intended to reference one that is distinct from the at least one housing portion, or whether the single housing portion is intended instead as “the at least one” housing portion. In either case, a fully supported clarifying amendment should be made.
This same or similar indefiniteness issue exists also for the claim 1 line 2-3 recitation of “the bore” as compared with the line 2 recitation of “at least one” bore, for the claim 1 “protective layer” (4th to last line) as compared with the previously recited “at least one” protective layer, and the claim 3 recitation of the “bores” (plural) for the extruder “screws” (plural) as compared with the previously recited “at least one” bore (singular or plural) with a “screw” (singular). The difference in number between these various recitations is confusing and should each be corrected by a fully supported amendment.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 5 exactly which previously recited component the suction channel is connected to.
Appropriate correction of these by amendment issues is required.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelm (DE 202012001277, machine translation made of record via IDS on 22 November 2024 cited herein) in view of Guntherberg et al. (US 2006/0034962) and Stirner (US 9,688,003).
As to claim 1, Wilhelm teaches an extruder corresponding to that claimed as set forth by the instant specification at p. 3 [0010] and as represented in the fig. 1-4 embodiments thereof and their corresponding description. Note, for example, an extruder comprising housing 102 with bore(s) 104, screw(s) 108/110, in addition to at least one housing portion accommodating a filter element containing what may be construed as a protective mesh layer 126, filter layer 130 having a mesh size falling into the claimed range ([0018] at p. 4, line 136), and rear layer 128 and which may be construed as located on a support frame configured in the manner claimed, the support frame detachably fastened by the lateral securements depicted in figs. 1 and 4, with the filter element believed to be removable in the manner claimed in addition to both self-supporting and dimensionally stable on account for example of the three-layer structure thereof.
Wilhelm discloses that the above-cited filter element may comprise a metal material ([0018] at p. 4, line 135 of the machine translation), and otherwise discloses use of sintered metal for another filter (p. 4 [0019] at line 144), but Wilhelm does not specify (a) that the metal for the above-cited filter element, or even the disclosed sintered filter, is formed from the claimed interconnected layers of sintered metal wire mesh screens. Wilhelm also does not specify (b) a mesh size for protective layer 126, or (c) the claimed safety distance.
With respect to missing features (a) and (c), Guntherberg also discloses an extruder (abstract) comprising a filter element likewise utilized for removing gaseous constituents from bulk material (see the abstract and [0016] devolatilization via an MCS filter element), in particular whereby (a) the filter element comprises interconnected layers of sintered metal wire mesh screens (see [0032], in particular the 4th to last sentence thereof) which may be customized depending on the particular object, mechanical strength, pressure conditions, and/or separation requirements as set forth also at [0032], and whereby (c) it is recognized that the amount in which the above-cited filter element protrudes into the gap between the extruder screw and wall should be chosen so as not to damage either the screw, the MCS, or other extruder components as set forth at [0029], thereby motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the claimed safety distance (i.e. gap) through routine experimentation in accordance with MPEP § 2144.05(II). Note further with respect to feature (a) that although Guntherberg’s exemplary [0032] mesh sizes begin immediately beyond the uppermost claimed limit for the filter layer, Guntherberg also states explicitly at [0032] that smaller mesh sizes (e.g. those of Wilhelm as set forth above) are also possible. With respect to feature (a), it would have been obvious to incorporate the above teachings from Guntherberg into Wilhelm as providing an art-recognized suitable metal filter for that referenced explicitly by Wilhelm as set forth above, and/or due to their potential for improvements with respect to customization as also set forth above. With respect to feature (c), it would have been obvious to incorporate the above teachings from Guntherberg into Wilhelm as providing motivation to find an optimum gap or safety distance between Wilhelm’s filter element and screw so as to minimize or eliminate any potential damage to these or other extruder components during use thereof. Further with respect to feature (c), it is noted that a similar optimization rationale would apply over Wilhelm alone, even without Guntherberg’s above-cited explicit teachings in this regard, and that this rationale should likewise be considered prior to a formal response being filed to this Office action.
With respect to missing feature (b), Stirner also discloses an extruder (figures) comprising a filter element likewise comprising a sintered metal (12:13) and likewise utilized for removing gaseous constituents from bulk material (abstract), in particular whereby (b) the filter element comprises a protective layer 70 having mesh openings 74 having a minimum dimension overlapping or encompassing the claimed range (see at least 11:13-14, etc., in addition to at least figs. 3-9 as relevant), which is believed not only to provide optimal protection to other filter components without hindering gas flow (10:54-11:3, etc.). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this feature (b) from Stirner into Wilhelm as providing an art-recognized suitable mesh size for Wilhelm’s corresponding protective layer 126, and/or as providing a mesh size optimized for supporting underlying filter element components without hindering gas flow.
The above-cited combination of Wilhelm, Guntherberg, and Stirner is believed to additionally provide the claim 2 adjustability for example via Wilhelm’s fig. 1,4 lateral securements, the claim 3 adjustability via said lateral securements believed to operate at least in part as a screw connection in the manner claimed, a type of fastening by one or both of the claim 4 means (see the depicted fastening represented by Wilhelm’s figs. 1 and 4), and the claim 6 seal (see again Wilhelm’s fig. 1, 4 embodiment(s) and their corresponding description).
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter as recited in claim 6 would be allowable if incorporated into claim 1, so long as the above-cited claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are additionally addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art cited under 35 U.S.C 103 rejection(s) above are considered to be among the closest to what is presently claimed, but individually or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination of components with their claimed configuration, in particular whereby in addition to the remaining claim recitations, an adjustable screw connection is provided between a support frame and cover plate, which screw connection has a bore running in the axial direction thereof for connecting a suction channel in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 A. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights