Detailed Office Action
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/22/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 2-3, 6, and 19-25 are cancelled. Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-18 remain pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the last limitation of claim 1 is not persuasive (see arguments of 7/22/2025, pages 6-7).
Applicant states that in KONERMANN the cooling ring 1 is in direct contact with tool 8. There is no gap or space between tool 8 and cooling ring 1. Conversely, the language of claim 1 requires that the "the annular cooling ring is spaced above a die" as shown below in FIG. 2 from the present application at least at cooling system area 24. There is simply no teaching in KONERMANN that the cooling ring 1 is spaced above the tool 8.
The limitation “gap or space” is not recited in the disputed limitation of claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the annular cooling ring of KONERMANN is clearly above its die {[FIG. 1] annular cooling ring 3 is above die 8 and annular cooling ring 1 is partially above die 1, thus they read on the limitation of “above”}.
Regarding the limitation of “allowing gas to flow between the annular cooling ring and the die”, if the Applicant’s intention is for Examiner to interpret this limitation as the gas flowing between a “gap” of the annular ring and die, then the Examiner submits that there is no written description support for this limitation in the instant disclosure and thus this limitation would have been rejected under 35 USC 112(a). As shown in instant figure 2, clearly the gas does not flow between these two solid physical objects, since die 8 terminates before the gas flow is introduced (emphasis added by the Examiner).
The Examiner maintains the 35 USC 103 rejections. The same arguments apply to the double patenting rejections; therefore, the double patenting rejections are also maintained in the office action.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONERMANN (US 5,281,375), hereinafter KONERMANN, in view of PLANETA (US 4,929,162), hereinafter PLANETA. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, KONERMANN teaches An apparatus for cooling {[abstract], [C1, L6-7]}, the apparatus comprising:
an annular cooling ring operable for receiving a flow of a molten film bubble and expelling a flow of cooling gas {[C7, L39-45], [FIG. 10] 116 is the annular cooling ring, 110 is the molten film bubble and the arrow is the cooling gas},
the annular cooling ring comprising, a middle lip, and an outer lip located outwardly radially spaced from the middle lip {[FIG. 10] the vertical section to the right of numeral 116 is the outer lip, 118 is the middle lip, note that outer lip is outward in relation to the middle lip},
the middle lip having an extended length longer than the outer lip {[FIG. 10] note that 118 is taller than the outer lip, thus have an extended length},
a radially inner surface of the outer lip and a radially outer surface of the middle lip define a channel operable to allow the flow of cooling gas along the radially outer surface of the middle lip {[FIG. 10] note the horizontal arrow will become vertical when reaching the channel between 118 and the outer lip},
wherein the middle lip is located radially intermediate the channel and the molten film bubble {[FIG. 10] 118 is between the channel and the film bubble 110},
and wherein the middle lip isolates the molten film bubble from the flow of cooling gas until the flow of cooling gas passes beyond the extended length of the middle lip {[FIG. 10] note that once the cooling gas passes the tip of 118 it contacts the film 110},
wherein a portion of the extended length of the middle lip that extends beyond a length of the outer lip and an area radially outward from the radially outer surface of the middle lip define an open air zone {[FIG. 10] note to the left of the tip of 118 is the open air zone and is located radially outward},
wherein the open air zone allows the flow of cooling gas to flow along only the middle lip, wherein the outer lip does not extend past the extended length of the middle lip {[FIG. 10] note that to left of tip of 118 the outer lip does not extend, thus cooling gas is in contact with only the tip of the middle lip 118},
wherein the annular cooling ring is spaced above a die from which the flow of the molten film bubble is received by the annular cooling ring allowing gas to flow between the annular cooling ring and the die {[C6, L15-35], [FIG. 1] note annular cooling ring 1/3 is above die 8 that delivers the molten film bubble 9/10 and allows gas 6 to flow}.
KONERMANN, however, is silent on the cooling ring having an inner lip that is located inwardly in relation to the middle lip and thus provide and inner channel with regard to the middle lip.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to cooling film bubble, PLANETA discloses an inner lip, a middle lip located outwardly radially spaced from the inner lip, the inner lip and the middle lip defining an inner channel operable to expel a flow of lubricating cooling gas between the middle lip and the molten film bubble {[C4, L1-13], [FIG.] 28 is the inner lip, the channel formed between 28 and 20 is the inner channel with the gas flow in between 20 and film bubble 10, note that the middle lip is disclosed by KONERMANN}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the inner lip defining an inner channel as disclosed by PLANETA in the cooling ring of KONERMANN.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the bubble cannot touch the deflector surface and become damaged/disrupted, as suggested by PLANETA {[C4, L14-30]}.
Regarding claim 4 and 5, PLANETA discloses wherein the outer lip and middle lip are adjustable to increase and decrease the extended length (claim 4), wherein the outer lip and middle lip are adjustable to increase and decrease a length of the channel (claim 5) {[C4, L1-13] note vertical adjustment, [FIG.] the Examiner notes that the top lip member 22 can be vertically adjusted relative to the intermediate deflector member 20}.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the outer lip and middle lip disclosed by KONERMANN adjustable relative to each other as disclosed by PLANETA since it has been held that making adjustable only takes routine skill in the art and would not yield unpredictable results. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(D). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust the flow rate and pressure of the cooling air.
The Examiner notes that vertically adjusting the outer lip and middle lip of KONNERMAN would have increased/decreased both the extended length and length of the channel.
Regarding claim 7, KONERMANN teaches the apparatus further comprising an annular collar removeably attached to the annular cooling ring, the annular collar spaced from the middle lip and outwardly radially adjacent the middle lip {[C11, L38-53], [FIG. 10] 156 is the annular collar that as whon by double arrow is removeably attached to the annular ring and outward in relation to the middle lip}.
Regarding claim 8, KONERMANN teaches wherein an area between the radially outer surface of the extended length of the middle lip, the outer lip, and annular collar define an induction zone, wherein an annular gap formed between the annular collar and the middle lip define an induction gap to allow the flow of cooling gas {[FIG. 10] note the induction zone between 156 and 118}.
Regarding claim 9, KONERMANN teaches wherein the induction zone allows the flow of cooling gas from the channel to interact with only the radially outer surface of the middle lip {[FIG. 10]}.
Regarding claim 10, KONERMANN teaches wherein the annular collar and middle lip are adjustable to increase or decrease a size of the induction zone and the induction gap {[FIG. 10 and 12] note 158 is adjustable vertically and horizontally, note the as shown under claim 4/5 above the middle lip of combination of KONERMASNN/PLANETA is adjustable}.
Regarding claim 11, KONERMANN teaches wherein the flow of cooling gas passing through the induction gap is operable to create a venturi effect to cause the flow of cooling gas and a flow of gas from the induction zone to pass through the induction gap {[C12, L7-16], [FIG. 10 and 12] note change in the annular collar 156 position changes the flow resistance and is capable of being operated to create a venture effect which would flow gas from the induction zone through the gap}.
Regarding claim 12, KONERMANN teaches wherein the annular cooling ring is operable to expel the flow of cooling gas on at least one of (i) a radially exterior surface of the molten film bubble with the flow of the molten film bubble, (ii) the radially exterior surface of the molten film bubble against the flow of the molten film bubble, (iii) a radially interior surface of the molten film bubble with the flow of the molten film bubble, and (iv) a radially interior surface of the molten film bubble against the flow of the molten film bubble {[FIG. 10] note cooling gas is expelled and radially touches the external surface of bubble 110}.
Regarding claim 13, KONERMANN teaches wherein the annular cooling ring is located on one of (i) an exterior to the molten film bubble, and (ii) an interior to the molten film bubble {[FIG. 10] note annular cooling ring 116 is on the exterior of film bubble 110}.
Regarding claim 14, KONERMANN teaches the annular cooling ring further comprising at least one of an additional single flow of cooling gas, dual flow of cooling gas, triple flow of cooling gas, and multi flow of cooling gas {[FIG. 1] 4/5 is the additional single flow of cooling gas}.
Regarding claim 16, KONERMANN teaches wherein a location of the annular collar along a longitudinal axis of the molten film bubble relative to annular cooling ring is adjustable {[FIG. 12] note the vertical double arrow for the annular collar 156}.
Regarding claim 17, KONERMANN teaches wherein at least one of the channel and the inner channel are operable to expel a cooling fluid {[FIG. 10] note the channel between middle lip 118 and the outer lip that allows the passage of the cooling gas.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONERMANN and PLANETA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JOPPE (US-2012/0200001), hereinafter JOPPE.
Regarding claim 15, combination of KONERMANN and PLANETA teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the adjustability of the annular ring along a longitudinal axis.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to device for production of film tubing, JOPPE discloses wherein a location of the annular cooling ring along a longitudinal axis of the molten film bubble is adjustable {[0028] note the teaching on an external cooling device 12 that can be lifted by lifting devices 13 in the y-direction 14, [FIG. 1]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the annular cooling ring disclosed by KONERMANN adjustable along the longitudinal axis as disclosed by JOPPE since it has been held that making adjustable only takes routine skill in the art and would not yield unpredictable results. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(D). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so in order to control the dimensions of the film bubble.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONERMANN and PLANETA as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of PURSTINGER (US 6,296,464), hereinafter PURSTINGER.
Regarding claim 18, combination of KONERMANN and PLANETA teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 17 as discussed above. This combination is, however, silent on the cooling fluid being water or a cryogenic gas.
In the same fled of endeavor that is related to cooling plasticized plastic, PURSTINGER discloses wherein the cooling fluid is one of water and cryogenic gas {[C3, L44-53]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the air disclosed by KONERMANN with the water or cryogenic gas disclosed by PURTINGER since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose only takes routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(11).
The Examiner also notes that KONERMANN further teaches that other cooling gasses with different heat capacities may be used instead of air {[C3, L46-50]}. Therefore, an artisan would have been motivated to look to prior art and determine what other cooling medium are appropriate for this purpose. Such prior art is PURSTINGER.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,458,666, in view of KONERMANN.
Regarding independent instant claim 1, US 11,458,666 claims all the limitation of the instant claim, except that it does not claim the last amended limitation of “wherein the annular cooling ring is spaced above a die from which the flow of the molten film bubble is received by the annular cooling ring allowing gas to flow between the annular cooling ring and the die”.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to production of bubble film, KONERMANN discloses wherein the annular cooling ring is spaced above a die from which the flow of the molten film bubble is received by the annular cooling ring allowing gas to flow between the annular cooling ring and the die {[C6, L15-35], [FIG. 1] note annular cooling ring 1/3 is above die 8 that delivers the molten film bubble 9/10 and allows gas 6 to flow}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incoprtated the teaching of KONERMANN in claim 1 of US 11,458,666. As shown by, KONERMANN the advantage of such configuration is the easy access of cooling gas to the molten film bubble {[FIG.1]}.
The Examiner also notes that claim 1 of US 11,458,666 claims that the outer lip cannot extend past the extended length of the middle lip. This limitation although not identical to the corresponding limitation of instant claim 1 (the outer lip does not extend past the extended length of the middle lip), however, “does not extend” is unpatentable in view of “cannot extend”. The Examiner also notes that the limitation of inner lip in instant claim 1 is claimed in claim 4 of US 11,458,666.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748