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 7 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Component “31” in Fig 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” and more specifically “Embodiments of an extruder comprise” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, L1: wherein the shank
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schippers (US3360824) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Schippers discloses an extruder comprising:
an extruder housing having an internal wall ("cylindrical passage" (11));
a single screw coaxially disposed within the extruder housing (“screw” (10)), the single screw comprising a shank ("blocking screw segment" (74)), wherein the shank and/or a region of the internal wall proximate the shank comprises helical channels (Fig 6);
a feed channel downstream of the shank (Fig 6, to the right of "tapered draw-in pocket" (15a)); and
a visco-seal comprising the helical channels (C5 L73-C6 L3, regarding "blocking screw segment" (74)) and also comprising an annular gap between the shank and the internal wall (Fig 6, with regards to section slightly right of “blocking screw segment” (74)), wherein the annular gap is variable across its length (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 2, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Schippers discloses that the annular gap tapers away from the feed channel (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 5, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Schippers discloses that the shank comprises a variable diameter to form the variable annular gap (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 6, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Schippers discloses that the shank comprises helical channels (Fig 6).
Regarding claim 8, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Additionally, Schippers discloses that the extruder further comprises a low pressure separator upstream of the feed channel (“degassing device” (72) and “line” (71)).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers (US3360824) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Schippers does not explicitly disclose that the annular gap tapers to at least half of its original maximum thickness, or least one third of its original maximum thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II)) and Schippers teaches that varying the volume inside the extruder affects extruder control (C3 L23-34). One would have been motivated to modify the degree of annular gap tapering for the purpose of maintaining control over the extrusion process.
Regarding claim 4, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Schippers does not explicitly disclose that the internal wall comprises a variable diameter in the region proximate the shank to form the variable annular gap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that:
a) it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.05(II));
b) Schippers teaches that varying the volume inside the extruder affects extruder control (C3 L23-34); and
c) the limited number of ways that the volume inside the extruder could be modified (either by changing the volume of the screw and/or the size of the internal walls surrounding the screw) presents a finite number of option that are immediately recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and the options do not produce new or unexpected results (See MPEP 2143(I)(E)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the earliest effective priority date to try the options presented to obtain the expected result of changing the volume inside the extruder.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers (US3360824) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of either Hansen (US3850415) (of record) and/or Maillefer (US4171196) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Schippers does not explicitly disclose that the internal wall comprises helical channels, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that both Hansen (“longitudinal grooves” (12), Fig 1, 5) and Maillefer (“grooves” (12), Fig 1, 2) teach the use of helical channels on internal walls of extruders for the benefit of increased output (Mansen: C1 L19-26, Maillefer: C5 L13-25).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers (US3360824) (of record) as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1 and further in view of Eisenmann (US3856278) (of record).
Regarding claim 9, Schippers discloses all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. While Schippers does not explicitly disclose that the extruder further comprises a gearbox coupled to a drive end of the single screw, wherein the shank and annular gap is disposed between the drive end of the single screw and the feed channel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective priority date of the instant application to do so, given that Eisenmann, which is within the extrusion art, teaches that connecting an upstream end of a screw (“screw” (4)) to a gearbox is considered to be a “conventional arrangement” (C3 L52-56, via “drive motor and a gearing”) and it has been held that the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is well within a person of ordinary skill’s ability to do (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)). One would have been motivated to use the conventional arrangement taught by Eisenmann in the apparatus of Schippers for the predictable result of powering the extruder’s screw.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER D BOOTH whose telephone number is 571-272-6704. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/ALEXANDER D BOOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights