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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 07/10/2025 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (JPH 0686919 U, hereinafter ‘919).
Regarding claim 1, ‘919 discloses a extrusion molding machine and rubber material supply device for supplying an unvulcanized rubber material to a screw in a cylinder of the extrusion molding machine – (construed as a rubber extruder into which a strip-shaped rubber material is fed, the rubber extruder comprising a circular cylindrical cylinder, a screw disposed inside the cylinder, and a feeding section located on an upstream side of the cylinder in an extrusion direction).
The feeding section comprising a feeding port penetrating, in a radial direction of the cylinder, from an outermost outer surface to an inner surface of the cylinder,
PNG
media_image1.png
286
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the screw having, at the position of the feeding section in the extrusion direction, a biting section into which a fore-end portion of the rubber material to be fed is bitten, and a distance from the outer surface of the feeding section to the biting section is smaller than an opening width of the feeding port in the extrusion direction at the outer surface, see annotated depiction above.
Regarding claim 7, 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. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935); see also MPEP 2115.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JPH 0686919 U, hereinafter ‘919), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anders (US 4,247,272).
Regarding claims 2-3, ‘919 does not explicitly disclose the claimed screw and feed roller distances. However, such distances would be readily envisioned by one of ordinary skill. As it is well-known and conventional in the art to have screw and feed roll distances between the components be set to create pressure on the material being fed. That is, the material being fed is “squeezed” by the roller arrangement to thereby pull the material into the cylinder.
In any event, Anders discloses an apparatus for controlling the feed of pieces of rubber material into the intake opening of an extruder. The apparatus being configured such that:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (d2)][AltContent: textbox (d1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Fore-end portion thickness)]
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a feed roller 4 arranged inside the feeding section in parallel with a screw 2, and a biting section is a position where a distance between an outer diameter surface of the screw and an outer diameter surface of the feed roller – (construed as d1) is smaller than a thickness of the fore-end portion of the rubber material 9 to be fed; and wherein the biting section is a position inside the feeding section where a distance between an outer diameter surface of the screw and an inner surface of the cylinder – (construed as d2) is smaller than a thickness of the fore-end portion of the rubber material to be fed. Anders further discloses such structure is particularly distinguished by a very simple and operationally reliable construction. Wherein its use makes it possible to feed the extruder with material at a feed rate which is independent of the cross-section of the material strip and which corresponds to the intake capacity of the screw or the discharge of the extruder, see Col 2 lines 60-69.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘919’s feed roll and screw to have the claimed distances as taught by Anders to provide the feed mechanism with the aforementioned benefits.
Claims 4-6, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JPH 0686919 U, hereinafter ‘919) as applied to claims 1-3 above.
Regarding claims 4-6, while ‘919 discloses the use of a feed port; it does not explicitly disclose the claimed first and second inner surfaces feeding port design. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Moreover, one seeking to optimize the feeding of the material strip would easily envision and/or as a matter of routine experimentation form the claimed surface angles since: ‘919 discloses the use of a conveyance system 10 having an appropriate inclination towards the feed roller to thereby feed the material obliquely downward, see ‘919 page 8 paragraph 2.
Claims 8-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JPH 0686919 U, hereinafter ‘919), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Pielsticker et al. (US 2021/0268459 A1), in view of Takeda (WO 2019049468 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 8, 15, ‘919 does not explicitly disclose the claimed roller disposed on the conveyor for maintaining a folded state of the fore-end portion of the rubber material.
Pielsticker discloses a method for charging at least one extruder with at least one material web including rubber – (construed as a method for feeding the rubber material into the rubber extruder by the use of a rubber extrusion system. This includes having the initial material be folded to produce a triangular or trapezoidal shape of the initial region – (construed as a fore-end portion) of the material web, see [0028] – (construed as a first step of folding the fore-end portion of the rubber material so that the intersecting point of the first edge and the second edge is placed on the third edge). This provides a benefit of simplifying the introduction of the material web into the material feed of a particular extruder, see [0028]. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have good reason to provide the fore-end portion of the rubber material in a folded state as doing so provides a benefit of simplifying the introduction of the material web into the material feed of an extruder.
Takeda discloses a conveying device for charging a strip-like and unvulcanized rubber material into a rubber extruder – (construed as a rubber extrusion system). The rubber extrusion system comprising a transport conveyor 21 for conveying rubber material to a rubber extruder – (construed as a feeding section), and a pressure roller 25 disposed on the conveyor for pressing the rubber material by its own weight, and can prevent the rubber material from rising from the transport conveyor 21, see page 23 paragraph 7. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have good reason to maintain a folded state of the fore-end portion of the rubber material using a pressure roller as this provides a benefit of preventing the rubber material from separating from the conveyor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘919’s extrusion molding machine as claimed and reasonably suggested by Pielsticker and Takeda to provide the extrusion molding machine with aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘919 further discloses the production plant is switched off when a person enters a safety area surrounding the production plant, see [0023], [0033] – (construed as a detection means for detecting an intrusion of an operator into a surrounding area of the feeding section).
Regarding claim 10, as previously disclosed, modified ‘919 discloses a method for charging at least one extruder with at least one material web including rubber – (construed as a method for feeding the rubber material into the rubber extruder by the use of a rubber extrusion system. This includes having the initial material be folded to produce a triangular or trapezoidal shape of the initial region – (construed as a fore-end portion) of the material web, see Pielsticker [0028] – (construed as a first step of folding the fore-end portion of the rubber material so that the intersecting point of the first edge and the second edge is placed on the third edge). This provides a benefit of simplifying the introduction of the material web into the material feed of a particular extruder, see Pielsticker [0028].
And Takeda discloses the use of a pressure roller for maintain contact between the rubber material and the conveyor, see the discussion of Takeda in the rejection of claim 8 – (construed as a second step of sandwiching the rubber material between the conveyor and the roller in order to allow a shape of the folded fore-end portion to be maintained). And both Pielsticker and Takeda discloses the folded rubber material portions are fed into an extruder, see at least Pielsticker Fig. 1, Takeda Figure. 5 – (construed as a third step of pushing the folded fore-end portion into the biting section from the feeding section).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
