DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Examiner Melendez has inherited this case from Examiner Hohenbrink.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/28/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent they apply to the current rejection. Applicant argues that the standard gap shape inputting inputs a die gap shape and not the product dimension parameter, but extrusion is a process by which a die imparts the its shape to the end product. Hamamatsu even notes “’standardized gap shape’ refers to a gap shape of the discharge port….matches the thickness shape determined for each type/size of the molded product” [0036]. Furthermore, Hamamatsu’s statement that “a standard gap shape input unit 34 that inputs a standardized gap shape (standard gap shape) for each type/size of molded product” infers selection of the size of the molded product as well. Applicant argues that Hamamatsu does not disclose optimizing changing time, however, applicant defines “An optimized changing time is in particular a reduced changing time, which is shorter than it would be achievable with a manual changing according to the prior art.” So the reduction in changing time noted in Hamamatsu would suffice.
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.
Claim 1, 3-11, 18 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.
The term geometric ratio is indefinite as the specification recites “the geometric ratios, such as the width of the respective product, or similar parameters.” In other words, “width” and “similar parameters” are non-limiting examples of the term geometric ratio. However, a ratio is a relation of one element to another whereas width is a singular element. Furthermore, no method of judging what would constitute a similar parameter is provided, see 2173.05(b) III C.
Unclear what is required by “product parameters of the follow-on product which are selected from a group comprising a material composition and a geometric ratio of the follow-on product, or a changing time between the feed product and the follow-on product.” Items are recited in a list, but the use of both “and” and “or” make it unclear which of the following 3 scenarios are required to meet the claim Scenario A claim is met if any of below options are met:
Option 1: material composition
Option 2: geometric ratio
Option 3: changing time
Scenario B claim is met if any of below options are met:
Option 1: material composition and changing time
Option 2: material composition and geometric ratio
Scenario C claim is met if any of below options are met:
Option 1: material composition and geometric ratio
Option 2: changing timeFor purposes of examination, scenario A was interpreted
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamamatsu et al. (JP 2014-19079 A, hereinafter “Hamamatsu”, references made to included machine translation to English).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamamatsu discloses an extrusion molding system (100) comprising an extrusion molding die (1) and an extruder (14) wherein melted resin particles are extruded from a discharge port (3) for in a slit shape and a plate-like molten resin (15) flows from the die onto a cooling roll (16) and solidifies to form a thick sheet or film (17) ([0035]), thus a flat film machine. A plurality of adjustment bolts (6), each provided with an internal heater (7), are provided so as to be adjustable at a plurality of places along the width of the die for adjusting a gap dimension of the die slot ([0025-0026]). A sensor (first sensor module, 9) is provided at positions corresponding to the adjustment bolts to measure the discharge port lip gap ([0027-0029]). An adjustment motor (19) capable of rotationally driving a plurality of adjustment bolts is mounted so as to be movable on a horizontal rail and arranged to be movable in the width direction ([0037]). The plurality of adjustment bolts may be set so that the shape ie geometric ratio of the die becomes a shape that is standardized for each kind/size of the desired product ([0036]). A thickness shape measuring device (second sensor module, 18) can detect the thickness shape along the width direction of the sheet or film (thickness profile of the film track (at least one production parameter)) ([0041]). A first control circuit (first controlling module, 20) and a drive circuit (first adjusting module, 21) can control the motor to rotate the plurality of adjustment bolts (0038), thus a controlled change. A second control circuit (second controlling module, 23) and a power supply circuit (second adjusting module, 22) can control the voltage to each of the plurality of heaters in the adjusting bolts to adjust the expansion/contraction of the local area around each adjustment bolt (adjusting profile of adjusting bolts of an outlet nozzle of the flat film machine (at least one production parameter)) ([0041]), thus a controlled change. Under the standard of broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed changing device is interpreted as comprising the modules Hamamatsu. Hamamatsu further discloses a monitor (output device, 24) is connected to all the proximity sensors (9) of the extrusion molding die for projecting an output signal from each proximity sensor as an image of the gap shape of the discharge port ([0063]). Further, a standard gap shape input unit (input device, 34) is connected for inputting a gap shape (standard gap shape) standardized for each product type/size of the molded product ([0063]). Thus, inputting the follow-on product.
In operation, based on the detection result of the first sensor module, the first controlling module controls the first adjusting module to rotate the adjusting bolts so that the gap shape of the discharge port is matched with the standard shape for the particular product to be produced, this being a rough adjustment ([0046]; Fig. 5, step S10). Next, resin particles are extruded, discharged, and cooled to form the sheet or film ([0047-0049]; Fig. 5, steps S11, S12, S13). Next, based on the detection result of the second sensor module, the second controlling module controls the second adjusting module to apply a voltage to the adjusting bolts to finely adjust the discharge port lip gap, this being a fine adjustment ([0050]; Fig. 4, step S14). Next, in this manner the thickness shape along the width direction of the sheet or film matches the thickness shape determined for the particular product being produced ([0051]; Fig. 5, step S15). If changing over a product to a different product (from a feed product to a follow-on product), repeat the steps S10-S15 above ([0052]). With this rough adjustment/fine adjustment method it is possible to reduce the material loss by shortening the time of completion of adjustment at product changeover compared to the prior art that does not have a rough/fine adjustment ([0002-0006], [0054]). Thus, the controlling module is configured to optimize the changing time between the feed product and the follow-on product.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 3 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu discloses the adjusting module is configured for controlling the at least one nozzle parameter of an outlet nozzle of the flat film machine, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitations of Claim 3 from which Claim 4 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu discloses as the at least one nozzle parameter, a nozzle discharge slot of the outlet nozzle and thus a local thickness of a discharged film track is changed locally in a controlled manner, as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 7 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu further discloses a monitor (output device, 24) is connected to all the proximity sensors (9) of the extrusion molding die for projecting an output signal from each proximity sensor as an image of the gap shape of the discharge port ([0063]). Further, a standard gap shape input unit (input device, 34) is connected for inputting a gap shape (standard gap shape) standardized for each product type/size of the molded product ([0063]). Thus, inputting the follow-on product.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the limitations of Claim 7 from which Claim 8 depends and Claim 1 from which Claim 18 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu further discloses since the gap shape of the discharge port can be constantly monitored during production, it is possible to compare the change in the quality of the molded product and the change in the thickness shape of the molten material discharged from the discharge port and cooled ([0065]). A standard gap shape input unit (input device, 34) is connected for inputting a gap shape (standard gap shape) standardized for each product type/size of the molded product ([0063]). Because the thickness of the sheet or film was monitored and compared to the quality of the product, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized quality was an optimization focus along with changeover time, and would be able to draw the reasonable inference that inputting the gap shape was inclusive of inputting a threshold value for minimum product quality/production stability.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamatsu et al. (JP 2014-19079 A, hereinafter “Hamamatsu”, references made to included machine translation to English) in view of Nakano (JPH11-333906, references made to included machine translation to English).
Regarding Claim 5, the limitations of Claim 3 from which Claim 5 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu does not disclose the adjusting module is designed for a controlled variation of an outlet width of the outlet nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor, molding of flat film via a nozzle device, Nakano discloses the following. “The absolute position and moving distance of a deckle bar (at least one nozzle parameter) at a T-die device (outlet nozzle, 31) are measured using a deckle bar position detection device (28). The width and thickness of a laminated film (33) discharged from the T-die device (nozzle discharge slot is implied) are measured using an in-line film thickness gauge (34). Information on the absolute position and moving distance of the deckle bar and information on the width and thickness of the laminated film are stored in a storage and display device (36). Based on the stored information, an appropriate deckle bar absolute position command and an appropriate deckle bar moving distance command are issued to the deckle bar movement device of the T-die device by a command device (37) to control the deckle bar position” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify or combine the Hamamatsu invention of an apparatus for a flat film machine changing device for controlling parameters when changing from a feed product to a follow-on product, as discussed above, with the Nakano teaching of controlling nozzle parameters to affect product characteristics. One would be motivated to combine them by a desire to gain the benefit of a remote- control mechanism which remote-controls a deckle bar movement device for moving the deckle bar of a T-die device for adjusting the width of film track production parament, and automatically stores a deckle bar position to gain the benefit of improved the operating efficiency, as taught by Nakano (Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamatsu et al. (JP 2014-19079 A, hereinafter “Hamamatsu”, references made to included machine translation to English) in view of Lössl et al. (US 2019/0240888 A1, hereinafter “Lössl”).
Regarding Claim 6, the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 6 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu does not disclose the adjusting module is designed for a controlled variation of a stretching parameter of the flat film machine.
In the same field of endeavor, molding of flat film via a nozzle device, Lössl discloses an apparatus for manufacturing and/or treating a plastic flat sheet film (changing device) ([0001-0002]). The changing device comprises a control apparatus (adjusting module) designed to be two-stage and further comprising a machine-dependent sensor module and a production-dependent process module (taken together, sensor module) and they are or can be mutually associated by production variables (claim 1). Wherein the adjusting module is designed such that, when the process variables relating to a plastics film to be manufactured are set differently, the machine variables are set automatically by the adjusting module (claim 8). The sensor module and the process module may be combined (claim 10). As detailed in paragraphs [0271-278], reduction in the changeover times during a product swap (optimized changing time), an example of a product changeover from a 20 um finished film thickness (at least one production parameter) for a first product (feed product) to a 25 um finished film thickness for a second product (follow-on product) teaches that variables that would need to be adjusted include extruder output, cast film temperature, lengthwise and transverse stretching temperatures, chill roll temperature, water bath temperature, lengthwise and transverse roller temperatures, and fan speeds ([0271-0278]). An optimization algorithm (controlling module) may be used in combination with comprehensive calculations in order to find suitable machine variables during the changeover, which are then transferred into the adjusting module and made effective in a controlled manner (controlled change) ([0147], [0195-0196], [0277]). Lössl further discloses when a film having specific product characteristics is manufactured on film machine, final product characteristics on the follow-on product may be set on the machine and the parameters dependent on the product characteristics are achieved automatically and in a system-assisted manner using the stored two-stage setting model of the sensor module to adjust production values such as lengthwise and transverse stretching forces to achieve the final product characteristics ([(0140-0141]). Thus, the adjusting module is designed for a controlled variation of a stretching parameter of the flat film machine.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify or combine the Hamamatsu invention of an apparatus for molding of flat film via a nozzle device, as discussed above, with the Lössl teaching of an adjusting module designed for a controlled variation of a stretching parameter. One would be motivated to combine them by a desire to gain the benefit of controlling an additional production parameter.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamatsu et al. (JP 2014-19079 A, hereinafter “Hamamatsu”, references made to included machine translation to English) in view of Yapel (US 2012/0315378 A1, hereinafter “Yapel”).
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 9 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu discloses a data monitor (output device, 24) ([0063]). However, Hamamatsu does not disclose an output device for an output of a predicted changing time is provided.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations of Claim 1 from which Claim 10 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu does not disclose the controlling module comprises a storage device for a specific storage of effected changings from feed products to follow-on products.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations of Claim 10 from which Claim 11 depends are disclosed by Hamamatsu as discussed above. Hamamatsu does not disclose the storage device comprises an evaluation module for an at least quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the stored changings.
In the same field of endeavor, molding of flat film via a nozzle device, Yapel discloses apparatus and methods for changing a plurality of actuators (changing device) for adjusting an applicator slot of a slot die for a film track on apparatus that forms thin- film extrusions that are films ([0001-0004]). The depiction of actuators (200) arranged linearly indicate the film product is flat (Fig. 1B). Thus, the apparatus is a flat film machine. The apparatus comprises a slot die (30) with a flexible die lip (82) with a plurality of actuators (adjusting modules, 200) connected to the flexible die lip, each actuator assembly operable to adjust the local position of the flexible die lip at its location and thereby adjust the local thickness of the nozzle slot (6) ([0037]; Fig. 3). An assembly including the adjusting modules and controllers (controlling modules, 300) may be used in a slot die such as the one described above ((0045]; Fig. 4). The adjusting modules includes a motor (210), linear actuator (220) coupled to the motor, and position sensors (sensor modules, 230) that may precisely measures the relative position of an output shaft (222) of the linear actuator ([0045]). The method further discloses techniques for selecting the position of each adjusting modules (at least one production parameter (adjusting profile of adjusting bolts of an outlet nozzle of the flat film machine)) according to a preselected cross-web thickness profile of the extruded film (thickness profile of the film track) ([0052]; Fig. 5). The controlling modules are configured to set the position of each adjusting module according to one of a plurality of discrete settings, such as measured positions of the sensor modules, and the controlling modules may retrieve the preselected cross-web thickness profile from a computer file or from user input ([(0054-0055]; Fig. 5). The controlling modules may, based on measurements from the sensor modules, operate the motor to change a plurality of discrete settings of the adjusting modules ([0056]).
During the operation of slot die, the controlling modules evaluate the cross-web thickness profile of the extrudate after it exits the applicator slot according to measurements of the extruded product (510) ([0074]). For example, the controlling modules may receive inputs from another sensor (unnumbered) that directly measures thicknesses of the extruded product at multiple cross-web locations ([0074]). Using the evaluation of the cross-web thickness profile, fluid dynamics, and a digital model of the die, the controlling modules then determine whether adjustments to the predicted set of discrete settings may provide a cross-web thickness profile of the extrudate after it exits the applicator slot that more closely matches the preselected cross-web thickness profile ([0055], [0074]). Because changing time is an operation that may be optimized, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably drawn the inference that that the predicted set of discrete settings is inclusive of a predicted changing time. While continuing to operate the slot die by passing the extrudate through the fluid flow path and out the applicator slot, the controlling modules reposition the adjusting modules according to the improved predicted set of discrete settings, and this set of discrete setting can be saved as a recipe for future retrieval and use when similar processing conditions are required ([0055], [0075]). Yapel further discloses extruding a product (feed product) according to a first set of discrete setting and then while continuing to operate, change over to a second set of discrete settings to produce a product (follow-on product) that is different from the feed product ([0102-0103)).
Yapel further discloses extruding the feed product according to a first set of discrete setting and then while continuing to operate, change over to a second set of discrete settings to produce the follow-on product that is different from the feed product, and discloses the timing of the adjustments is selectable ([0102-0103], [0105]). Yapel further discloses a user interface (output device, 920) that interacts with the controlling modules to display an output of the control operations of the adjusting modules to control the operation of the slot die ([(0107-0111]; Figs. 11A-D). Yapel discloses the user can input a particular slot die operation program and further discloses the timing of the adjustments is selectable ([(0105-0107]), thus showing the controlling module is capable of performing the recited limitations including a selectable changing time. Because changing time is an operation that may be optimized, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably drawn the inference that that the predicted changing time may be provided on the output device. Yapel further discloses sets of discrete setting can be saved as a recipe for future retrieval and use when similar processing conditions are required ([0075]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention would recognize saving the recipe necessitates use of a storage device, and that pulling up stored recipes for selection at a future time necessarily involves at least a quantitative or qualitative evaluation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify or combine the Hamamatsu invention of an apparatus for molding of flat film via a nozzle device, as discussed above, with the Yapel teaching of the functions discussed above. One would be motivated to combine them by a desire to gain the benefit of enhanced control over the process including prediction of changeover times and evaluation of stored date.
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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759