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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there was no motivation to combine Vidalat with Friction Extrusion. However, both references were concerned with the recycling of material via an extrusion method below the melting temperature of the material. Certainly the energy savings noted in Friction Extrusion would be desirable, and given that Friction Extrusion utilized metallic material which is generally is harder to process than plastic, resin materials one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successful recycling the resin materials of Vidalat. Applicant is essentially arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art, ie a professional engineer having work experience in the particular field of extrusion recycling and likely graduate level education in mechanical engineering, would not see the applicability of friction extrusion to recycling process and would expect a process that was capable of sheering metal to be incapable of sheering plastic waste. The examiner does not agree. Applicant emphasizes the worm screw extrusion of Vidalat. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Applicant argues that the examiner’s argument with regards to art recognized equivalents is erroneous as Vidalat does not establish rotation of the die tool or rotation of the billet/container. The examiner remarks were concerned with solely the axial translation of the die tool/feedstock. As to the rotation of the die tool that would still be rendered obvious for the reasons provided in the initial office action: “this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation.” As to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 10, they are entirely antithetical to established examination procedure as a reference is not required to recite the full claimed range verbatim in order to render a range obvious. Both ranges disclosed by Vidalat are narrower ranges than that described by applicant, which would render them obvious see MPEP 2144.05.
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.
Claims 1-5 areprovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 1, 18806408 recites in claims 10 and 11 A method of extruding a polymer composite, the method comprising: loading a feedstock material comprising a first polymer and a second polymer into a container; establishing shear at an interface between a face of a die tool and a face of the feedstock material by establishing rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material; establishing an axial extrusion force at the interface between the face of the die tool and the face of the feedstock material by translating the die tool relative to the feedstock material, contemporaneously with the rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material; and extruding the feedstock material through an opening of the die tool using plastic deformation of a solid phase of the feedstock material in response to the rotation and the axial extrusion force at the interface.
As to claim 2, 18806408 recites in claim 15 extruding the feedstock material does not melt the feedstock material.
As to claim 3, 18806408 recites in claim 15 the feedstock material is not melted prior to or during the extruding.
As to claim 4, 18806408 recites in claim 10 wherein one or more of the first polymer or the second polymer comprises scrap or waste; and wherein the polymer composite comprises a mixture of the first polymer and the second polymer.
As to claim 5, 18806408 recites in claims 10-12 scrap or waste associated with a first resin identification code and the second polymer comprises scrap or waste associated with a different second resin identification code.
Claims 6, 7, 10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Vidalat (US 2020/0023555).
As to claims 6, 7, 18806408 does not explicitly recite the features of these claims
Vidalat teaches one or more of the first polymer or the second polymer comprises scrap or waste; and wherein the polymer composite comprises a mixture of the first polymer and the second polymer, the first polymer comprises polypropylene and the second polymer comprises low density polyethylene or high density polyethylene [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033]. Vidalat teaches the feedstock material is shredded film [0081] which is reasonably interpreted as flake. These materials proved successful at being recycled into densified extrudate [Abstract], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408, an utilized a mixture of scrap LDPE and HDPE flakes, as suggested by Vidalat, as these material had proven successful at recycling.
As to claim 10, Vidalat teaches the opening connected to the face of the die tool is a circular bore [Fig 3] having a diameter between 1 mm and 5 mm as Vidalat teaches the diameter may be as small as “a few” mm (in other words 3) and notes an axial length of up 15 times the diameter which for a diameter of 3-5 would be 45-75 mm [0161, 0162]. Furthermore, Vidalat notes that the axial length and diameter determined level of densification in the end extrudate [0162]; in other words axial length and diameter of the die were art recognized results effective variables. axial length and diameter determined level. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case axial length and diameter of the die, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize die diameter to 1-5 mm and axial length to 30-100 mm, as suggested by Vidalat, in order to achieve the desired degree of densification.
Claims 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) referred to as Friction Extrusion.
As to claims 8, Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes “scrolled feature on the face of the die aid material flow into the extrusion orifice which can lead to order of magnitude reduction in extrusion force” [Fig 4 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408 to have the materials travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this greatly reduced the required extrusion force.
Claims 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) referred to as Friction Extrusion and Whalen (Scaled-Up Fabrication of Thin-Walled ZK60 Tubing Using Shear Assisted Processing and Extrusion (ShAPE)).
As to claims 9, Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion states that “either the die or the charge may rotate or they may be counter rotating” [Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables] in other words maintaining the rotation position of the die and the rotating charge would be presumably be accomplished via the rotation of the charged holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408 to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation at different rates, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation. Friction extrusion states that “either the die or the charge may rotate or they may be counter rotating” [Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables] in other words maintaining the rotation position of the die and the rotating charge would be presumably be accomplished via the rotation of the charged holder.
Whalen teaches a method of friction extrusion [Abstract] and notes “In the ShAPE process, a rotating billet is forced into a stationary extrusion die where significant heating occurs due to friction at the billet/die interface…the billet face softens and plastically flows through the spiral scroll features inward toward the extrusion orifice” [316 2nd column, Fig 1] and notes this process “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques” [316 2nd column, Fig 1], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat and had the die remain stationary while the container rotated to induce shear force, as suggested by Whalen, as this provided “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques.”
As Friction extrusion teaches the die can translate relative to the container and Whalen notes the rotation of the billet/container, the rotation and translation are accomplished by different independent parts and therefore would be controllable independently.
Claims 11-13, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Schabel (US 2022/0065535).
As to claim 11, 18806408 recites in claims 10 and 11 A method of extruding a polymer composite, the method comprising: loading into a container feedstock material comprising a first polymer type and a second polymer type different from the first polymer type; establishing a rotation-induced shear force shear at an interface between a face of a die tool and a face of the feedstock material by rotating the feedstock material at a different rate than the die tool; establishing an axial extrusion force at the interface between the face of the die tool and the face of the feedstock material by translating the die tool relative to the container; and producing extrudate by extruding the feedstock material through an opening of the die tool using plastic deformation in response to the rotational shear and the axial extrusion force at the interface.
Schabel teaches a plastic conversion system [Abstract] wherein waste material [0024] is pelletized [0029, Fig 1, 4] in order to improve flowability for extrusion [0024], increase density of the material as well as eliminate air entrapment [0029, Fig 1, 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408 and utilized pelletization before extrusion, as suggested by Schabel, in order to improve flowability for extrusion, increase density of the material and eliminate air entrapment.
As to claim 12, 18806408 recites in claims 10-12 the first polymer type is a first type of recycled polymer and the second polymer type is a second type of recycled polymer.
As to claim 13, 18806408 recites in claims 10-12 generating extrudate from the feedstock material made of a homogenized mixture of the first type of recycled polymer and the second type of recycled polymer.
As to claim 20, 18806408 recites in claims 15 the feedstock material is not melted prior to or during the extruding.
Claims 14 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Schabel (US 2022/0065535), as applied to claims 11-13, 20 above, and in further view of Vidalat (US 2020/0023555).
As to claims 14, 16 18806408 does not explicitly recite the features of these claims
Vidalat teaches one or more of the first polymer or the second polymer comprises scrap or waste; and wherein the polymer composite comprises a mixture of the first polymer and the second polymer, the first polymer comprises polypropylene and the second polymer comprises low density polyethylene or high density polyethylene [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033]. Vidalat teaches the feedstock material is shredded film [0081] which is reasonably interpreted as flake. These materials proved successful at being recycled into densified extrudate [Abstract], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408, an utilized a mixture of scrap LDPE and HDPE flakes, as suggested by Vidalat, as these material had proven successful at recycling.
Claims 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Schabel (US 2022/0065535) and Vidalat (US 2020/0023555, as applied to claims 14 and 16 above, and in further view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion).
As to claims 15, Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes “scrolled feature on the face of the die aid material flow into the extrusion orifice which can lead to order of magnitude reduction in extrusion force” [Fig 4 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408 to have the materials travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this greatly reduced the required extrusion force.
Claims 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-12, 15 of copending Application No. 18806408 in view of Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) referred to as Friction Extrusion and Whalen (Scaled-Up Fabrication of Thin-Walled ZK60 Tubing Using Shear Assisted Processing and Extrusion (ShAPE)), Schabel (US 2022/0065535).
As to claims 17-19, Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion states that “either the die or the charge may rotate or they may be counter rotating” [Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables] in other words maintaining the rotation position of the die and the rotating charge would be presumably be accomplished via the rotation of the charged holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of 18806408 to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation at different rates, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation. Friction extrusion states that “either the die or the charge may rotate or they may be counter rotating” [Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables] in other words maintaining the rotation position of the die and the rotating charge would be presumably be accomplished via the rotation of the charged holder.
Whalen teaches a method of friction extrusion [Abstract] and notes “In the ShAPE process, a rotating billet is forced into a stationary extrusion die where significant heating occurs due to friction at the billet/die interface…the billet face softens and plastically flows through the spiral scroll features inward toward the extrusion orifice” [316 2nd column, Fig 1] and notes this process “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques” [316 2nd column, Fig 1], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat and had the die remain stationary while the container rotated to induce shear force, as suggested by Whalen, as this provided “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques.”
As Friction extrusion teaches the die can translate relative to the container and Whalen notes the rotation of the billet/container, the rotation and translation are accomplished by different independent parts and therefore would be controllable independently.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) referred to as Friction Extrusion.
As to claim 1, Vidalat teaches a method of extruding a polymer composite [Abstract], the method comprising: loading a feedstock material comprising a first polymer and a second polymer into a container (55) [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033]; establishing shear at an interface between a face of a die tool and a face of the feedstock material; establishing an axial extrusion force at the interface between the face of the die tool and the face of the feedstock material by translating the die tool relative to the feedstock material as this is what extrusion definitionally is as the die cavity must be smaller than the feedstock in order to shape it and would therefore have to have at least some small amount of shear force at the interface between the die tool and the feedstock [0034, 0133, Fig 3]; and extruding the feedstock material through an opening of the die tool using plastic deformation of a solid phase of the feedstock material [0034, 0133, Fig 3].
Vidalat does not state establishing rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material or that the die is translated relative to the feedstock.
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation.
As to claim 2, Vidalat teaches extruding the feedstock material does not melt the feedstock material [0147, 0024, Abstract].
As to claim 3, Vidalat teaches the feedstock material is not melted prior to or during the extruding [0147, 0024, Abstract].
As to claim 4, Vidalat teaches one or more of the first polymer or the second polymer comprises scrap or waste; and wherein the polymer composite comprises a mixture of the first polymer and the second polymer [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033].
As to claim 5, Vidalat teaches the first polymer comprises scrap or waste associated with a first resin identification code and the second polymer comprises scrap or waste associated with a different second resin identification code [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033].
As to claim 6, Vidalat teaches the first polymer comprises polypropylene and the second polymer comprises low density polyethylene or high density polyethylene [0066, 0067].
As to claim 7, Vidalat teaches the feedstock material comprises shredded material [0081].
As to claim 8, Vidalat teaches mixing and consolidating the multiple polymers as explained above but does not explicitly state travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool.
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes “scrolled feature on the face of the die aid material flow into the extrusion orifice which can lead to order of magnitude reduction in extrusion force” [Fig 4 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have the materials travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this greatly reduced the required extrusion force.
As to claim 10, Vidalat teaches the opening connected to the face of the die tool is a circular bore [Fig 3] having a diameter between 1 mm and 5 mm as Vidalat teaches the diameter may be as small as “a few” mm (in other words 3) and notes an axial length of up 15 times the diameter which for a diameter of 3-5 would be 45-75 mm [0161, 0162]. Furthermore, Vidalat notes that the axial length and diameter determined level of densification in the end extrudate [0162]; in other words axial length and diameter of the die were art recognized results effective variables. axial length and diameter determined level. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case axial length and diameter of the die, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize die diameter to 1-5 mm and axial length to 30-100 mm, as suggested by Vidalat, in order to achieve the desired degree of densification.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion), as applied to claims 1-8, 10 above, and in further view of Whalen (Scaled-Up Fabrication of Thin-Walled ZK60 Tubing Using Shear Assisted Processing and Extrusion (ShAPE)).
As to claims 9, As explained above the combination of the Vidalat and Friction Extrusion teach rotating the feedstock material relative to the die and maintaining a rotational position of the die but do not explicitly mention the rotation of the container.
Vidalat does not state establishing rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material or that the die is translated relative to the feedstock with the rotation being independent .
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation.
Whalen teaches a method of friction extrusion [Abstract] and notes “In the ShAPE process, a rotating billet is forced into a stationary extrusion die where significant heating occurs due to friction at the billet/die interface…the billet face softens and plastically flows through the spiral scroll features inward toward the extrusion orifice” [316 2nd column, Fig 1] and notes this process “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques” [316 2nd column, Fig 1], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat and had the die remain stationary while the container rotated to induce shear force, as suggested by Whalen, as this provided “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques.”
As Friction extrusion teaches the die can translate relative to the container and Whalen notes the rotation of the billet/container, the rotation and translation are accomplished by different independent parts and therefore would be controllable independently.
Claim(s) 11-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) referred to as Friction Extrusion, as applied to claims 1-8, 10 above, and in further view of Schabel (US 2022/0065535).
As to claim 11, Vidalat teaches a method of extruding a polymer composite, the method comprising: loading into a container feedstock material comprising a first polymer type and a second polymer type different from the first polymer type [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033]; establishing shear force shear at an interface between a face of a die tool and a face of the feedstock material [0034, 0133, Fig 3]; establishing an axial extrusion force at the interface between the face of the die tool and the face of the feedstock material [0034, 0133, Fig 3]; and producing extrudate by extruding the feedstock material through an opening of the die tool using plastic deformation in response to the rotational shear and the axial extrusion force at the interface [0034, 0133, Fig 3].
Vidalat does not state establishing rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material or that the die is translated relative to the feedstock.
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion states that “either the die or the charge may rotate or they may be counter rotating” [Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables] in other words maintaining the rotation position of the die and the rotating charge would be presumably be accomplished via the rotation of the charged holder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation at different rates, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation.
Schabel teaches a plastic conversion system [Abstract] wherein waste material [0024] is pelletized [0029, Fig 1, 4] in order to improve flowability for extrusion [0024], increase density of the material as well as eliminate air entrapment [0029, Fig 1, 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat and utilized pelletization before extrusion, as suggested by Schabel, in order to improve flowability for extrusion, increase density of the material and eliminate air entrapment.
As to claim 12, Vidalat teaches the first polymer type is a first type of recycled polymer and the second polymer type is a second type of recycled polymer [0065, 0067, 0071, 0074, 0001, 0010, 0022, 0033, Fig 1].
As to claim 13, Vidalat teaches generating extrudate from the feedstock material made of a homogenized mixture of the first type of recycled polymer and the second type of recycled polymer as the material is shredded and mixed in the extruder [0081, Fig 3].
As to claim 14, Vidalat teaches the first type of recycled polymer is recycled polypropylene and the second type of recycled polymer is recycled low density polyethylene or recycled high density polyethylene [0066, 0067].
As to claim 15, Vidalate teaches mixing and consolidating the multiple polymers as explained above but does not explicitly state travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool.
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes “scrolled feature on the face of the die aid material flow into the extrusion orifice which can lead to order of magnitude reduction in extrusion force” [Fig 4 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have the materials travel through plurality of pathways in the face of the die tool, the plurality of pathways connected to the opening of the die tool, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this greatly reduced the required extrusion force.
As to claim 16, Vidalat teaches the feedstock material is shredded film [0081] which is reasonably interpreted as flake.
As to claim 20, Vidalat teaches feedstock material is not melted prior to or during the extruding [0147, 0024, Abstract].
Claims 17 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vidalat (US 2020/0023555) in view of (Wikipedia- Friction Extrusion) and Schabel (US 2022/0065535), as applied to claims 11-16, 20 above, and in further view of Whalen (Scaled-Up Fabrication of Thin-Walled ZK60 Tubing Using Shear Assisted Processing and Extrusion (ShAPE)).
As to claims 17, 19, As explained above the combination of the Vidalat and Friction Extrusion teach rotating the feedstock material relative to the die and maintaining a rotational position of the die but do not explicitly mention the rotation of the container.
Vidalat does not state establishing rotation of the die tool relative to the feedstock material or that the die is translated relative to the feedstock with the rotation being independent .
Friction Extrusion explains the general description of friction extrusion noting that it is generally useful of making extrudate from waste by plastic deformation [Friction Extrusion, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. Friction extrusion notes that either the feedstock can be translated relative to the die (phrased as “extrusion force normal to the die face”) or the die can be translated relative to the feedstock (phrased as “rate of die advance to the charge”). In other words, the having the feedstock be translated relative to the die and translating the die relative to the feedstock were art recognized equivalents. Friction extrusion noted having the feedstock or the die be rotated relative to one another [Fig 1 caption, Description of the Process and Essential Process Variables]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat to have utilized rotating the feedstock relative to the die and simply substituted extrusion force normal to the die for having the die be translated relative to the feedstock such that the advancement of the die face was contemporaneous with the relative rotation, as suggested by Friction Extrusion, as this had proven successful at recovering waste material and was generally more energy efficient way of inducing plastic deformation.
Whalen teaches a method of friction extrusion [Abstract] and notes “In the ShAPE process, a rotating billet is forced into a stationary extrusion die where significant heating occurs due to friction at the billet/die interface…the billet face softens and plastically flows through the spiral scroll features inward toward the extrusion orifice” [316 2nd column, Fig 1] and notes this process “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques” [316 2nd column, Fig 1], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Vidalat and had the die remain stationary while the container rotated to induce shear force, as suggested by Whalen, as this provided “unique control over grain refinement and crystallographic orientation, and hence material property improvements, beyond conventional extrusion techniques.”
As Friction extrusion teaches the die can translate relative to the container and Whalen notes the rotation of the billet/container, the rotation and translation are accomplished by different independent parts and therefore would be controllable independently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights