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 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.
Claims 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori (US4448537A), in view of Gorman (US20060188599A1), further in view of Scholtens (US20150158228A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugimori discloses an extruder (“screw-type hydro-extracting extruder”; Column 2, lines 50-52) comprising:
(a) supplying a resin material containing moisture with a supplying unit (“raw material supply zone” FIG.2 #2; Column 3, lines 1-5) supplying a resin material containing moisture (“resin having…water content” Column 1, lines 57-61) into a cylinder (“barrel” FIG.2 #2 and “barrel” FIG.2 #13; Column 3, lines 1-14 and Column 2, lines 15-29);
(b) conveying the resin material by a screw (“screw” FIG.7 #21) built in the cylinder and conveying the resin material supplied to the cylinder (Column 3, lines 51-61);
(c) discharging the moisture from a dehydration cylinder portion (“hydro-extracting zone”; Column 4, lines 4-18) provided in the middle of the cylinder (See FIG.2 where the hydro-extracting zone is between the raw material supply zone and heat-melting zone; Column 1, lines 52-55) and discharging the moisture separated from the resin material (Column 10, lines 35-37),
(d) extruding the resin material from a die (82) that is connected to a tip portion of the cylinder (col. 5, lines 17-33),
- wherein the dehydration cylinder portion has a structure in which a plurality of plate-shaped members each having an opening are arranged in a long-axis direction of the cylinder (“plurality of doughnut-shaped plates” Column 1, lines 55-57), the screw passing through the opening (given that this is a screw-type hydro-extracting extruder, and in the extruder, the slits of the plates are vertical to the screw shaft (Column 6, lines 45-52) it would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art the screw is within the doughnut opening of the plates even if not explicitly illustrated in the figures (Column 2, lines 53-57).
Sugimori further discloses mutually opposing surfaces (“first face” and “second face” of “plurality of plate members”; Column 10, lines 23-36, which are the “plate defining the hydro-extracting zone” FIG.2 #3’-8’; Column 2, lines 20-21) of the plurality of plate-shaped members (FIG.2 #3-8), but fails to teach the surface roughness of mutually opposing surfaces of the plurality of plate-shaped members is rougher than surface roughness of an inner wall of the cylinder.
Gorman teaches a method of manufacturing articles with structured surfaces [0002] wherein venting structures (“bleed structures”), corresponding to Applicant’s mutually opposing surfaces of the plurality of plate-shaped members, are used to provide pathways for fluid to exit the molding cavity without significant amounts of moldable material escaping through said venting structures [0100]. The venting structures are formed by any suitable surface treatment to form a roughened surface [0105], wherein said mold cavity which is defined as any discontinuity into which a moldable material may flow during a molding process, corresponding to Sugimori’s inner wall of the cylinder, is smooth [0018]. By including venting structures with roughened surfaces, the benefit of allowing fluid to more easily escape is obtained [0097]. Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the surface roughness of mutually opposing surfaces of the plurality of plate-shaped members is rougher than surface roughness of an inner wall of the cylinder as taught by Gorman, to obtain the benefit of allowing fluid to more easily escape.
Further, Scholtens teaches an extruder [0001] wherein the barrel liners of the extruder, corresponding to the claimed limitation of the inner wall of the cylinder, preferably have a smooth surface with low surface roughness [0016]. By having the inner wall of the cylinder smooth, the benefit of improved cleanability and good heat transfer is obtained [0016]. Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill of art would have found it obvious to modify the inner wall of the cylinder of Sugimori to be smooth as taught by Scholtens to obtain the benefit of improved cleanability and heat transfer of the cylinder.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Sugimori teaches the extruder according to claim 1, wherein Sugimori further discloses the moisture (“liquid component”) separated from the resin material (“material”) is discharged from between the mutually opposing surfaces (“between a predetermined plate member and adjacent ones thereto”) of the plurality of plate-shaped members (See Column 10, lines 22-37).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Sugimori teaches the extruder according to claim 1, wherein Sugimori further discloses each of the plurality of plate-shaped members has a protrusion (“first raised portions” and “second raised portions”) that protrudes in the long-axis direction of the cylinder and a gap (“space”) between the plurality of plate-shaped members is defined by the protrusion (Column 10, lines 27-36).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimori (US4448537A), in view of Gorman (US20060188599A1), further in view of Scholtens (US20150158228A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nomura (US20150247011A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Sugimori teaches the extruder according to claim 1, but fails to teach the surface roughness of the mutually opposing surfaces of the plurality of plate-shaped members is 1.6a to 25a in terms of arithmetic mean roughness Ra.
Nomura teaches a method for producing a rubber wet master batch [0017] in an extruder with a cylinder [0038] wherein a portion of the outer-cylinder inner-wall-surface is subject to a blasting treatment [0011] to obtain a favorable surface roughness (Ra) of 10 to 100 µm (corresponding to 10a to 100a thus overlapping the claimed range of 1.6a to 25a) [0012 and 0040]. By providing this surface roughness in the 10a to 100a range, the benefit of the extrudate receiving shearing forces while being hooked on the irregularities is obtained thus resulting in a more effective dehydration and minimizing the thermal and mechanical energies needed in the drying process [0011]. Given that the extrudate would receive this shearing force based on the irregularities of the surface roughness, it would be obvious that water which is less viscous than the extrudate would flow more easily thus causing the more viscous extrudate material to not flow as easily. When the surface roughness of Nomura is applied to the opposing surfaces of modified Sugimori, it would be obvious that the irregularities of the roughened surface would cause a higher shearing force on the extrudate and thus minimize the escape of the extrudate between these plates given that the extrudate is a more viscous material compared to the water within the extrudate that is being removed; thus, more effectively dehydrating the material given the water would not face the same shearing forces as the extrudate due to a lower viscosity.
Although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the mutually opposing surfaces of the plurality of plate-shaped members of modified Sugimori with the surface roughness being 10a to 100a (overlapping the claimed range of 1.6a to 25a) in terms of arithmetic mean roughness Ra, as taught by Nomura, to obtain the benefit of the extrudate receiving shearing forces while being hooked on the irregularities thus resulting in a more effective dehydration and minimizing the thermal and mechanical energies needed in the drying process.
Conclusion
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 06/26/2026
Prosecution Insights