DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection. All of applicants arguments are in regards to the end and the distance from the side surface, but both of these features are mere changes in shape which is generally recognized to be prima facie obvious absent demonstration of some unexpected result or criticality. Applicant argues that that this particular feature was not addressed (see arguments in regards to in re Ochiai) and that no articulated reasoning was provided, but both of these were addressed by the examiner’s determination that this feature was a mere change in shape or size, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. Applicant supplied no argument as to why this feature is not a mere change in shape or size. Furthermore, applicant argues that the port does not extend radially outward from a side surface, but it does extend radially outward from the side surface of the that is part of the groove, ie the side surface above where the arrow extends from 44 of Fig 2.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2018/0311894).
As to claim 1, Saito teaches a plasticizing device comprising: a motor (30); a screw (40) that has a groove formation surface in which a spiral groove is formed and is rotated about a rotation axis by the motor [Fig 1,2]; a barrel (50) that has a facing surface facing the groove formation surface in a direction along the rotation axis and is formed with a communication hole (56) into which a plasticized material obtained by plasticizing a material flows; a heater (58) configured to heat the material supplied between the groove formation surface and the facing surface; and a screw case (10) that is formed with a recessed portion, accommodates the screw in the recessed portion, and is formed with a supply port (exit of 22) for supplying the material to the groove, wherein a length of the screw in the direction along the rotation axis is smaller than a length in a direction perpendicular to the rotation axis, an introduction port that is continuous with the groove is formed in a part of a side surface of the screw that intersects the groove formation surface, a length of the introduction port is larger than a length of the supply port in the direction along the rotation axis, and a distance between the side surface and an inner wall of the recessed portion varies in a rotation direction of the screw when viewed from the direction along the rotation axis [Claim 1, Fig 1, 2]. Saito teaches the introduction port has an end that extends radially outward from the side surface of the screw [Fig 1, 2], but does not explicitly state the distance that varies is exclusive of the end that extends radially outward, but this is a mere change in shape of either the port end (ie if the port end just terminated at an earlier position along the circumference of the screw) or just a change in dimension of the screw side surface. Moreover, this feature amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV.
As to claim 2, Saito teaches the introduction port is an opening extending from a first side to a second side that define the introduction port in the rotation direction, the first side (sidewall on first side of 44) is located behind the second side in the rotation direction, and the distance is shortest on the first side [Fig 2].
As to claim 3, Saito teaches a groove has an introduction groove located between the first side and the second side when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the rotation axis, and the introduction groove becomes deeper from the first side toward the second side [Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 4, Saito teaches an end of the introduction groove is located between the first side and the second side when viewed from the direction perpendicular to the rotation axis [Fig 1,2].
As to claim 5, Saito teaches the end of the introduction groove is located at an end of the screw in the direction along the rotation axis [Fig 1,2].
As to claim 6, Saito teaches the material has a pellet shape [0030], and would demonstrate a shortest length of the distance is smaller than an avg of maximum length of the material, and a longest length of the distance is larger than the avg. maximum length of the material at least to the same extent as the instant application [Fig 1,2]. The article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims, see MPEP 2115.
As to claim 7, Saito teaches a length of the introduction port is larger than a length of the supply port in the rotation direction [Fig 1].
As to claim 9, Saito teaches a nozzle (60) configured to discharge the plasticized material toward a stage [Fig 1].
As to claim 10, Saito teaches the introduction port has an end that extends radially outward from the side surface of the screw [Fig 1, 2], but does not explicitly state the distance that varies is exclusive of the end that extends radially outward, but this is a mere change in shape of either the port end (ie if the port end just terminated at an earlier position along the circumference of the screw) or just a change in dimension of the screw side surface. Moreover, this feature amounts to a mere change in size or shape, which is generally regarded as obvious, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. The trailing borders of the introduction port (ie the start of the side surface) would scrape working material from the side of the screw case at least somewhat when rotated and thus would meet the claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 2018/0311894) in view of Hideshima (US 2020/0031037).
As to claim 8, Saito teaches a nozzle (60) configured to discharge the plasticized material toward a stage [Fig 1].
Hideshima teaches a plasticizing device [Abstract] wherein the plasticizing device can be utilized in either an injection molding machine [0115, 0003] or in a 3D printing machine [0030-0033] as a plasticizing device can be used in either. 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 Saito and made the plasticizing device be within an injection molding machine and the nozzle be configured for use with a mold, as suggested by Hideshima, as these similar device had proven useful in either application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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