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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“forming means for the plastic molten material” in claim 14. The sufficient structure to perform the acts in the claim is “at least one forming die.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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:
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2012/0291631), hereinafter Noda, in view of Rockstedt (US Patent No. 5,762,975).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Noda discloses an apparatus for degassing molten plastic material comprising:
(a) an intake chamber provided with an entry port and an exit port (“discharge passage 101” – par. 0082; Fig. 2) for molten plastic material;
(b) an evacuation chamber (“degassing chamber 22”) for a gas present in the molten plastic material, provided with an entry opening (“inlet port 24”) and an exit opening for plastic material (“outlet port 25”), which is arranged downstream of said intake chamber (as shown in Fig. 2) along a flow direction of the material with the entry opening associated with the exit port of the intake chamber (in Fig. 2, discharge passage 101 and inlet port 24 are labeled at the same point, thus meeting this limitation); and
(c) a forming means for the molten plastic material in transit through said evacuation chamber comprising at least one die (par. 0058).
Noda does not explicitly disclose that the forming means/at least one die moves in an alternate sliding motion along a movement direction transverse to the flow of the material as is required in the claim.
However, Rockstedt discloses a die head (7) (Fig. 4) including a die plate (12) and manifold (21) that is configured as to move in a sliding motion (see Fig. 4) from a first configuration (see Fig. 3) where the die (7) would be in communication with the intake (cavity 3) and evacuation chambers if applied to the apparatus of Noda above at the point between the intake and evacuation chambers (which is a “die” opening); and a second configuration (see Fig. 4) where the die is accessible from outside the chambers of the extruder (Rockstedt, 4:4-4:32). Either the die plate (12) or the die head (7) could read upon the claimed forming die.
Noda discloses a “base” system including an extruder and a degassing apparatus. Rockstedt discloses an “improvement” to the base system above in that it includes a die as configured in the claimed invention, usable with an extruder as in Noda above.
One of ordinary skill in the art, with predictable results, would have had a reasonable expectation of success from having included a die/forming means as in Rockstedt, in the system of Noda above, as to have provided a shaping means for the polymer leaving the intake chamber (extruder) for the molten plastic material as it is degassed in accordance with Noda above.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have specified that the die of Rockstedt is incorporated into the system of Noda as is required in the claims.
Regarding claims 15-17, Noda/Rockstedt discloses the subject matter of claim 14, and further discloses a supporting table (Rockstedt, Figs. 3-4, die head 7) interposed between said intake chamber and said evacuation chamber (as modified above), and includes at least one receptacle for the die with a raised portion (see Fig. 1 and 4) abutting the die.
Regarding claim 18, Noda/Rockstedt discloses the subject matter of claim 15, and the modification above would require the plates from Rockstedt in the modification, as to attach the die to the intake chamber/evacuation chamber, as is required above.
Regarding claims 19-22, Noda/Rockstedt discloses the subject matter of claim 18, and further discloses that there are two retaining clamps (Rockstedt, 3:24-3:40) and screws (threaded elements) used to attach the die to the plate(s).
Regarding claims 23-25, Noda/Rockstedt discloses the subject matter of claim 19, and further discloses a rail guide (Rockstedt, 3:7-3:23) as to facilitate the alternating sliding motion (as in Figs. 3-4) and a screw which requires actuation by rotation as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights