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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodhams Raymond (WO 92/11125 A1; hereinafter “Woodhams”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 16-18, Woodhams teaches a die assembly for processing of UMHWPE (page 1, line 6), the die assembly (Fig. 18 below) comprising:
a circular enclosed straight channel (96) having an inlet and an outlet, construed to convey matter through the channel from the inlet towards the outlet along a flow axis, wherein the channel comprises a housing (90) to form an enclosure fully enclosing the channel, wherein the channel comprises:
a buffer section (first conical section 98) having a length A; and a compression section having a length B, wherein: the buffer section is positioned at an inlet side of the channel; the compression section (conical section 102) is positioned at an outlet side of the channel; and the buffer section and the compression section are connected to each other; wherein the buffer section has a first diameter D1 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side of the inlet of the channel; and a second diameter D2 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side towards the outlet of the channel, wherein D1 >D2, wherein the compression section has a first diameter D3 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side towards the inlet of the channel that corresponds to D2; and a second diameter D4 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side of the outlet of the channel, wherein D3 >D4 to form a tapered channel section at an angle
β
; wherein the buffer section forms a tapered channel at an angle
α
; wherein the angle
α
>
β
; wherein at least one of D1, D2, D3 and D4 is circular (see Fig. 18).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
1092
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 taken from Woodhams showing buffer section at 98 and compression section at 102.
As for claim 7, Woodhams further teaches a material in let and extruder barrel comprising at least one extruder screw; and an outlet for removing processed material from the extruder, and wherein the outlet comprises the die of assembly 1 (see Fig. 1 main barrel 12 which includes rotary screw 14 having a helical thread, see page 7 lines 1-30).
As for claims 8 -9, Woodhams further teaches wherein the extruder further comprises cooling unit (see Figure 1 item 60 or cooler for cooling barrel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodhams Raymond (WO 92/11125 A1; hereinafter “Woodhams”).
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6 Woodhams teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the angle β is
≥
1.0o and
≤
10.0
o; wherein the length B of the compression section is
≥
20 and
≤
100
m
m
; wherein a ratio of length B/length A is
≥
2.0
…
a
s
c
l
a
i
m
e
d
.
As noted above, since Woodhams discloses that a buffer section (first conical section 98) having a length A; and a compression section having a length B, wherein: the buffer section is positioned at an inlet side of the channel; the compression section (conical section 102) is positioned at an outlet side of the channel; and the buffer section and the compression section are connected to each other; wherein the buffer section has a first diameter D1 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side of the inlet of the channel; and a second diameter D2 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side towards the outlet of the channel, wherein D1 >D2, wherein the compression section has a first diameter D3 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side towards the inlet of the channel that corresponds to D2; and a second diameter D4 perpendicular to the flow axis at the side of the outlet of the channel, wherein D3 >D4 to form a tapered channel section at an angle β.
The only difference between Woodhams and claimed invention is the dimensions, i.e. diameter and angle as claimed. It is noted that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have modified Woodhams for the purpose of providing desired flow and final structure, and such mere change in scale/dimensions of the claimed device is not patentability distinct from the prior art device. See In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Additionally see, In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954) (Claims were directed to a handle for a fishing rod wherein the handle has a longitudinally adjustable finger hook, and the hand grip of the handle connects with the body portion by means of a universal joint. The court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance, and because there was an art-recognized need for adjustment in a fishing rod, the substitution of a universal joint for the single pivot of the prior art would have been obvious.). In this case where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently, as the prior art Woodhams specifically teaches the buffer section and compression section with almost similar size, thus ratio as claimed would also have been obvious as the buffer section is larger in diameter than the compression section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2011/0089602 A1; US 2018/0236705 A1; US 2019/0217522 A1 are all pertaining to extrusion including die for extrusion and forming pellet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights