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 9/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references do not teach the first and second plugs are opposite each other in the axial direction of the first lower die. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kragh teaches the arranged of the patterning rolls in both axial directions as explained previously and disclosed in [0214, 0284, 0436, 0440-0442, 0444, Fig 10, 12]. Hayashi teaches the configuration for incorporating these patterning rolls into the die which involves use of plugs on each axial end of the shaft of the roll extrudate [Fig 2, 4, 9-12, 0021,0031, 0034]. Hence, the combination of the roll arrangement suggested by Kragh and the plug configuration of Hayashi teach all the features alleged missing by applicant.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jansson(US 2003/0000272) in view of Kragh (SE 2051218) and Hayashi (WO 2020/184411).
As to claim 1, Jansson teaches an extrusion die for forming a patterned product that applies a pattern to a plurality of surfaces of a hollow intermediate product formed of thermoplastic material extruded continuously from a feeder , comprising: an upper die to which the thermoplastic material is supplied, and which has a mandrel (33) having a bearing (the thick portion at the base of the mandrel) to form a hollow space in the intermediate product; an intermediate die (the portions of the fixed die (110, 210, 310, 410) the upper die with mandrel 33 is bolted to) having a bearing to shrink external dimensions of the intermediate product; and a lower die (4) supporting the upper die through the intermediate die, wherein the lower die (3) comprises: a first lower die comprising a first patterning tool (12) that is rotated by a movement of the intermediate product to apply the pattern to at least one of outer surfaces of one of pairs of opposing side walls of the intermediate product [Fig 1-8] and a second patterning tool (5 or the platen approximate to title Fig 1).
Jansson does not explicitly state a second patterning tool that is rotated by the movement of the intermediate product to apply the pattern to at least one of outer surfaces of another pair of the opposing side walls of the intermediate product; and a second lower die that is joined to the first lower die so as to fix the second patterning tool.
Kragh teaches an extrusion device [Abstract] wherein a set of 4 rotating dies each on an outer surface are configured to apply the same or different patterns or compensate for different materials [0214, 0284, 0436, 0440-0442, 0444]. 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 Jansson and utilized second patterning tool that is rotated by the movement of the intermediate product to apply the pattern to at least one of outer surfaces of another pair of the opposing side walls of the intermediate product, as suggested by Kragh, in order to provide different or same pattern to every surface and compensate for material differences.
Jansson teaches that the 3combination of Jansson and Kragh teach the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool as explained above and Jansson places the tool are arranged in the first lower die in a rotatable manner respectively [Fig 1, 8-10], but does not explicitly state the positions of the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool with respect to the intermediate product may be adjusted respectively in the first lower die, the extrusion die for forming the patterned product as claimed in the extrusion die for forming the patterned product as claimed in wherein a bearing is fitted on each end of shafts of the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool, a first plug is mounted on each of the bearings fitted on each end of the shaft of the first patterning tool, and a second plug is mounted on each of the bearings fitted on each end of the shaft of the second patterning tool, each of the first plugs is fitted individually into a first recess formed on an upper surface of the first lower die, and each of the second plug is individually fitted into a second recess formed on a lower surface of the first lower die, and the first lower die further comprises a binding force adjusting mechanism that adjust a binding force applied to each of the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool so as to allow the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool to slide toward and away from the intermediate product.
Hayashi teaches an extrusion die with patterning tools are adjustable via a binding force adjusting mechanism such as bolts (35), plug (32), shaft with bearings (36) on each end and the plug lodged in recesses of the die as this configuration had proven successful for adjusting the patterning rolls and had demonstrated success at producing a patterned extrudate [Fig 2, 4, 9-12, 0021,0031, 0034]. 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 Jansson and included made the patterning tools adjustable relative to the die and the extrusion die for forming the patterned product as claimed in the extrusion die for forming the patterned product as claimed in wherein a bearing is fitted on each end of shafts of the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool, a first plug is mounted on each of the bearings fitted on each end of the shaft of the first patterning tool, and a second plug is mounted on each of the bearings fitted on each end of the shaft of the second patterning tool, each of the first plugs is fitted individually into a first recess formed on an upper surface of the first lower die, and each of the second plug is individually fitted into a second recess formed on a lower surface of the first lower die, and the first lower die further comprises a binding force adjusting mechanism that adjust a binding force applied to each of the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool so as to allow the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool to slide toward and away from the intermediate product, as suggested by Hayashi, in order to make the patterning tools be adjustable and this configuration had proven successful in extrusion die applications. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious, see MPEP 2143 A and C.
As to claim 2, Jansson teaches the extrusion die for forming the patterned product as claimed in wherein the first lower die of the lower die (3) further comprises a lower guard surface that guides the intermediate product formed by the bearings at least to the same extent as the guard (39) in the instant invention [Fig 1], and the mandrel comprises a retreating surface (the thinner portion of the mandrel downstream from the thicker portion) that absorbs pressing forces applied to the intermediate product from the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool [Fig 8].
As to claim 3, Jansson teaches that the retreating surface expands to a leading end of the mandrel as the narrower surface is maintained until the end of the mandrel in Jansson [Fig 1-8]. Jansson teaches that the mandrel extends to a level lower than levels at which the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool roll on the intermediate product in the moving direction of the intermediate product as it extends past the narrowest portion of the nip of the rollers which would be aligned with their axis of rotation. A slight gap can even be seen in Fig 8 between the extrudate and projections of the rolls.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claims 4 and 6, the combination of Jansson and Kragh teach the first patterning tool and the second patterning tool are adapted to apply the same or different pattern to the outer surfaces of the intermediate product as explained above.
As to claim 5, Kragh depicts rollers that are unpatterned which would be a tool adapted to form a plane surface on the side wall of the intermediate product [Fig 2, 3B. Fig 16]. 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 Jansson and included patterning tools adapted to form a plane surface on the extrudate, as suggested by Kragh, as this had proven successful at creating aluminum extrudate products. Furthermore, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results and/or use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP 2143.
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