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 Amendment
Claims 34 is cancelled.
Claims 2, 11, 13-15, 18, 21-23, 25-27, 29, and 33 are cancelled.
In view of amendment, filed on 09/16/2026, the following rejections are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on 06/17/2026.
Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 24, 28, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2004/0238991).
New Grounds of Objections / Rejections
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the containing volume” in 15th – 16th lines which needs to be modified as to “the at least one containing volume”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 24, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Amended claim 1 recites “designated to delay or expedite a flow” in 13th line which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “delay” and “expedite” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 recites “such as organic/nonorganic substances, aggregates, cellulose, polymers.” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 24, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2004/0238991) in view of Minkkinen et al. (US 2019/0184621)
As to claim 1, Smith (US ‘991) discloses a variable flow recyclable material extrusion system, comprising:
(i) at least one containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) of substantially a barrel shape having an outlet (exit port 32, ¶ [0022]) and an inlet (the exit 34 of the plunger housing 14, ¶ [0024]) and designated to contain a recyclable material (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]) that comprises various substances capable of having at least two thermodynamic phases and capable of a multiphase flow,
(ii) at least one sliding element (a plunger or piston 16, ¶ [0023]) configured to move within the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) and further configured to increase pressure of the recyclable material (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]) and create a movement thereof toward the outlet (exit port 32, ¶ [0022]) of the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]),
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A sliding element (16))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (An inlet (34))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A containing volume (10))]
PNG
media_image1.png
374
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A physical structure (38))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Exit port (32))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A power source (18, 19))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
387
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(iii) at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) located along an inner perimeter (the barrel bore 22, ¶ [0025]) of the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]), and
(iv) a power source (a hydraulic pump 18 or other similar reciprocating apparatus via linkage 19, ¶ [0023]), wherein the recyclable material (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]) is designated to flow within the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) along a flow line in accordance with the multiphase flow of the substances, wherein the at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is designated to delay or expedite a flow of at least one of the substances relative to at least one other substance.
Smith (US ‘991) is silent on disclosing that the at least one physical structure is designated to cause a differential movement between the at least two thermodynamic phases within the containing volume to obtain predetermined physical properties of extruded recyclable materials (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]), as claimed in claim 1.
In the analogous art, Minkkinen et al. (US ‘621) disclose a variable flow recyclable material extrusion system (claims 1-18; paragraph [0048]), comprising:
[AltContent: textbox (Physical structure (11))][AltContent: arrow]at least one containing volume (fig. 1a, cf. 8) of substantially a barrel shape (fig. 1a, cf. 2) having an outlet (fig. 1, cf. 9) and an inlet (fig. 1a, cf. 3) and designated to contain a recyclable material that comprises various substances having at least two thermodynamic phases and capable of a multiphase flow,
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one sliding element (1))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A power source (4))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Containing volume (8))][AltContent: textbox (A barrel shape (2))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
454
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least one sliding element (fig. 1a, cf. 1) configured to move within the containing volume and further configured to increase pressure of the recyclable material and create a movement thereof toward the outlet of the containing volume,
at least one physical structure (fig. 1b and 2, cf. 11) located along an inner perimeter of the containing volume, and
a power source (fig. 1a, cf. 4),
- wherein the recyclable materials is designated to flow within the containing volume along a flow line in accordance with the multiphase flow of the substances,
- wherein the at least one physical structure is designated to delay or expedite a flow of at least one of the substances relative to at least one other substance, thereby causing a differential movement between the at least two thermodynamic phases within the containing volume, and
- wherein the differential movement is designated to obtain predetermined physical properties of extruded recyclable materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the time of Applicant’s invention, through operating the disclosed physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]), in Smith (US ‘991), through causing a differential movement between the at least two thermodynamic phases within the containing volume to obtain physical properties of extruded recyclable materials in order to enhance the transfer of the material to be processed and to enhance the mixing and blending properties of the extruder, as suggested by Minkkinen et al. (US ‘621): ¶ [0057] and ¶ [0059].
Claim 1 recites “(i)… and designated to contain a recyclable material that comprises various substances having at least two thermodynamic phases and capable of multiphase flow” which are the recitations of material worked upon by the apparatus and therefore is considered as intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
Further, claim 1 recites “(iv) a power source…delay or expedite a flow of at least one of the substances relative to at least one other substance, thereby causing a differential movement between the at least two thermodynamic phases within the containing volume, and wherein said differential movement is designated to obtain predetermined physical properties of the extruded recyclable materials” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 3, Smith (US ‘991) teaches at least one heating element (¶ [0027]: heater bands) configured to affect conversion of the recyclable material. (¶ [0027]: the plunger housing 14 and barrel housing 20 is heated or pre-heated prior to the start of mixture feeding process with heater bands (not shown), or the like.)
As to claim 4, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the heating element (¶ [0027]: heater bands) is located outside the at least one containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) and designated to heat the recyclable material without direct contact with it. (¶ [0027]: the plunger housing 14 and barrel housing 20 is heated or pre-heated prior to the start of mixture feeding process.)
As to claim 5, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the heating element (¶ [0027]: heater bands) is located inside the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) and designated to heat the recyclable material using a direct contact with it. (¶ [0027]: the plunger housing 14 and barrel housing 20 is heated or pre-heated prior to the start of mixture feeding process with heater bands (not shown), or the like.)
As to claim 6, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the at least one heating element (¶ [0027]: heater bands) is located at different angles/orientations relative to the flow line capable of having a different effect on the different thermodynamic phases in the recyclable material. (¶ [0027]: due to heat applied to the plunger housing 14 and barrel housing 20, the mixture 36, particularly the polymer component 26 of the mixture 36, begins to melt.)
Further, claim 6 recites “in order to have a different effect on the different thermodynamic phases in the recyclable material” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 7, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the at least one sliding element (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14) is at least two sliding elements (¶ [0023]: a plunger or piston 16 and a linkage 19) are configured to move within one containing volume and further configured create a spiral movement. (¶ [0023]: the machine is a reciprocating screw injection molding machine)
As to claim 8, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the sliding element (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14) comprises designated notch/es configured to accommodate the heating element/s (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14 is heated or pre-heated prior to start of mixture feeding process with heater bands) and thus enabling the sliding element (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14) to advance further within the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) towards the outlet (exit port 32, ¶ [0022]).
As to claim 9, Smith (US ‘991) teach the sliding element (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14) comprises a designated inclined front surface configured to accommodate correspondingly inclined heating element/s (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14 is heated or pre-heated prior to start of mixture feeding process with heater bands) and thus enabling the sliding element (¶ [0023]: the plunger housing 14) to advance further within the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) towards the outlet (exit port 32, ¶ [0022]).
As to claim 10, Smith (US ‘991) disclose the outlet (exit port 32, ¶ [0022]) is configured to be fitted with a cover having at least one aperture. (¶ [0024]: the barrel bore 22 gradually tapers inwardly from a diameter of, for example, approximately 2.0 inches to an exit port 32 of, for example, approximately 0.25 inches and extends, for example, to a length of approximately 12.0 inches.)
As to claim 12, Smith (US ‘991) teach at least one recess embedded in the inner perimeter (the barrel bore 22, ¶ [0025]) of the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]) and further comprising the at least one physical structure (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]).
As to claim 16, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the at least one recces further comprises at least one heating element (¶ [0027]: the plunger housing 14 and barrel housing 20 is heated or pre-heated prior to the start of mixture feeding process with heater bands (not shown), or the like.)
As to claim 17, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is configured to create turbulences designated to cause a greater accumulation of the substance/s having a slower thermodynamic phase in comparison with substances having a faster thermodynamic phase. (¶ [0023] - ¶ [0024])
Further, claim 17 recites “designated to cause a greater accumulation of the substance/s having a slower thermodynamic phase in comparison with substances having a faster thermodynamic phase” which are the recitations of the intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 19, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the recyclable material (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]) comprises various substances such as organic/nonorganic substances, aggregates, cellulose, and polymers. (¶ [0023] - ¶ [0024])
Further, claim 19 recites “the recyclable material comprises various substances such as organic/nonorganic substances, aggregates, cellulose, and polymers.” which are the recitations of material worked upon by the apparatus and therefore is considered as intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 20, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the recyclable material (the dry polymer mixture 26 and reinforcing fibers 28, ¶ [0023], the extrusion material 36, ¶ [0024]) is a waste material processed to particles. (¶ [0023] - ¶ [0024])
Further, claim 20 recites “the recyclable material is a waste material processed to particles” which are the recitations of material worked upon by the apparatus and therefore is considered as intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
As to claim 24, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is a protrusion. (¶ [0023] - ¶ [0024])
As to claim 28, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is at least one aperture/slit. ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025].
As to claim 30, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is at least two physical structures are designated to be located on a same perpendicular cross-section plane along the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]). See figs. 1-2 and 6.
As to claim 31, Smith (US ‘991) teaches the at least one physical structure (the fins 38 have a deeper profile 40, ¶ [0024] - ¶ [0025]) is at least two pairs of physical structures are designated to be located on different perpendicular cross-section planes along the containing volume (molding barrel 10, ¶ [0022]).
As to claim 32, Smith (US ‘991) discloses the recyclable material (a dry blend mixture of base material 26, such as polymer, and reinforcing material 28, such as carbon fiber, is introduced into the plunger housing 14 via a feed port 24 with the assistance of a non-destructive auger 44 that gently feeds the material 36, ¶ [0027]) comprises polymeric and non-polymeric substances, the former being designated to melt and encapsulate the latter. (see ¶ [0027])
Further, claim 32 recites “the recyclable material comprises polymeric and non-polymeric substances, the former being designated to melt and encapsulate the latter” which are the recitations of material worked upon by the apparatus and therefore is considered as intended use and do not provide further structural limitations and further patentable weight for the claimed apparatus. The structure of Smith (US ‘991), as clarified above, is capable of performing said intended use recitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 09/16/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant’s arguments that “the limitations following the phrase “such as” are part of the claimed invention” is not persuasive since the concept of the term “such as” is distinct and separate from the concept of the term “comprising” or “including”. If the claim tend to positively cover the
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 09/16/2026, with respect to previous prior art rejection of the clamed subject matter have been considered but are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly directed to the newly added limitations to claim 1 and that Smith (US ‘991) fails to disclose the newly added limitations. However, the above new ground of the prior art rejection introduces a new prior art of Minkkinen et al. (US ‘621) to fully address the newly added limitations in claim 1. Therefore, arguments are moot in view of the above new grounds of the rejections.
Finally, Examiner would like to suggest if Applicant’s Counsel believes that an interview can benefit the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant’s Counsel is kindly invited to contact the undersigned examiner.
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 SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-6215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, SUSAN D. LEONG can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754 10/08/2026
