DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to the amendment filed 06/10/2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn from the previous office action:
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 8
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means for changing the amount of air in claim 2-6 and means for changing the amount of air in claims 9 and 11-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The limitations are therefore understood and interpreted to cover only the structure present in each respective claim.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication DE202020000221U1 (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), hereafter Hosokawa, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,954, hereafter Pinter.
Regarding claim 1, Hosokawa discloses a stretching device ([0001]) for stretching a plastic film (1) in its transport direction (see Fig. 1) , having a first roller (5a) that can be driven by a first drive ([0025-0026] first roller has different peripheral speed from second roller, therefore a drive device is considered to be present to effect the difference in respective speeds) and can be rotated at a first rotational speed ([0025] first and second rollers have different peripheral speeds), and having a second roller (5b) that can be driven by a second drive ([0025-0026] first roller has different peripheral speed from second roller, therefore a drive device is considered to be present to effect the difference in respective speeds) and can be rotated at a second rotational speed ([0025] first and second rollers have different peripheral speeds), the second rotational speed being greater than the first rotational speed ([0025] the second roller has a higher peripheral speed than the first roller), the second roller (5b) being arranged downstream of the first roller (5a, see Fig. 1) in the transport path of the plastic film (1), characterized by means for changing the amount of air ([0015]) between the plastic film (1) and surface elements (considered to be the roller surface) of the first roller (5a) and/or of the second roller (5b) on which the plastic film rests ([0015] second roller is air-permeable air-flow roller connected to vacuum source, which exerts negative pressure to suck the film web onto the roller; [0016] alternatively the first roller is the air-flow roller; [0017] both rollers are air-flow rollers), and the first (5a) and/or the second (5b) roller comprise at least one cavity which is divided into at least two segments in ([0022] double-shell roller) by means of at least one separating element ([0022] double-shell roller with small holes through surface, the separating element would be constituted by the shell inside the outer shell), wherein at least one segment of the at least two segments can be subjected to an air pressure which is reduced or increased in comparison with the ambient pressure ([0015] second roller is subjected to vacuum source to suck film onto roller, drawing in air).
Hosokawa is silent on wherein the separating element extends radially between an axis of the first roller and/or the second roller to its roller shell.
In the analogous art of airflow rollers, Pinter discloses wherein the cavity of the roller (1) is divided in the axial direction by a separating element extending radially between an axis of the first roller and/or the second roller to its roller shell (Fig 1, col 5 lines 43-48, discs and dividing sheets 3, 3’ and discs 11’, 11’’, 11’’’ divide interior of roller axially, allowing a desired vacuum profile along the axis of the suction roll 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Hosokawa to further divide the cavity of the roller in the axial direction in order to allow a desired vacuum profile along the axis of the roller, as suggested by Pinter.
Regarding claim 3, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprise through openings in the surface of the first roller (5a) and/or the second roller (5b), said through openings providing a fluid-communicating connection between an outer surface and a cavity within the first roller and/or the second roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller).
Regarding claim 4, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprise through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), wherein at least part of the through openings can be provided by a porous material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range).
Regarding claim 5, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprises through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), at least a part of the through openings being provided with a porous material, the porous material being a sintered material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range, sintered stainless steel).
Regarding claim 6, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprise through openings in at least part of a roll shell of the first roller (5a) and/or the second roller (5b), at least part of the through openings being formed by bores ([0022] double-shell roller, with channels for air guidance, which are designed as small holes).
Regarding claim 7, Hosokawa further discloses the first (5a) and/or the second roller (5b) comprise at least one cavity which can be subjected to an air pressure that is lower than the ambient pressure ([0015] second roller is subjected to vacuum source to suck film onto roller, drawing in air to interior).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hosokawa further discloses the first (5a) and/or the second (5b) roller are divided into at least two segments in the circumferential direction (Hosokawa, [0022] double-shell roller) by means of the at least one separating element ([0022] double-shell roller with small holes through surface, the separating element would be constituted by the shell inside the outer shell).
Regarding claim 9, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air between the plastic film and surface elements of the first roller (5a) and/or the second roller (5b) on which the film rests comprises at least one suction device ([0015] vacuum source) with which air can be sucked out of the region in which the plastic film comes into contact with the first (5a) and/or the second roller (5b) in the transport direction ([0015] second roller is subjected to vacuum source to suck film onto roller, drawing in air).
Regarding claim 15, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprise through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), wherein at least part of the through openings is provided by a microporous material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range).
Regarding claim 16, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprises through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), at least a part of the through openings being provided with a microporous material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range), the microporous material being a sintered material ([0022] sintered stainless steel).
Regarding claim 17, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprises through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), at least a part of the through openings being provided with a porous material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range), the porous material being a sintered metal ([0022] sintered stainless steel).
Regarding claim 18, Hosokawa further discloses the means for changing the amount of air comprises through openings in the surface of the first (5a) roller and/or the second (5b) roller ([0014] air can flow from the outside to the inside of the roller; [0015] air-permeable roller), at least a part of the through openings being provided with a microporous material ([0022] open-porous material in the micrometer range), the microporous material being a sintered metal ([0022] sintered stainless steel).
Regarding claim 19, Hosokawa further discloses the at least one separating element runs parallel to the axis of the first roller and/or the second roller ([0022] double-shell roller – the inner shell would be running parallel to both the outer shell and axis of the roller)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication DE202020000221U1 (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), hereafter Hosokawa, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,954, hereafter Pinter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,428,724, hereafter Levy.
Regarding claim 2, Hosokawa is silent on the inclusion of depressions in the surface of the first roller and/or the second roller, the air being receivable in the depressions.
In the analogous art of plastic film roll processing, Levy discloses depressions in the surface of the roller, the air being receivable in the depressions (col 2 lines 7-14 microgrooving in processing roll minimizes the air layer without embossing the film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the first and/or second roller of Hosokawa to include microgrooving as disclosed by Levy in order to minimize the air layer between the film and the roller without embossing the film, as suggested by Levy (col 2 lines 7-14).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication DE202020000221U1 (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), hereafter Hosokawa, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,954, hereafter Pinter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published Application US20090085259A1, hereafter Nishi.
Regarding claim 10, Hosokawa discloses the film may be sucked onto the air permeable roller with varying degrees of strength across its width ([0019]).
Hosokawa is however silent on the suction device being divided into sections transversely to the transport direction of the plastic film.
In the analogous art of plastic film roll processing, Nishi discloses the suction device being divided into sections transversely to the transport direction of the plastic film ([0068] vacuum box has suction inlet divided into sections in the lateral direction can adjust the wind velocity of suction in each section to make adjustment of suction wind velocity easy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Hosokawa to use a suction device divided into sections transversely to the transport direction of the plastic film as disclosed by Nishi in order to allow easy adjustment of the wind velocity of suction in each section, as suggested by Nishi ([0068]), and to apply varying strength of negative pressure across the axial length of the roller, as disclosed by Hosokawa ([0019]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Publication DE202020000221U1 (supplied by applicant, used previously attached machine translation), hereafter Hosokawa, in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,954, hereafter Pinter, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Published Application US20070264446A1, hereafter Otoshi.
Regarding claim 11, Hosokawa is silent on at least one upper-pressure device, with which the surface of the plastic film facing away from the first roller and/or the second roller can be acted upon with air under upper pressure.
In the analogous art of plastic film roll processing, Otoshi discloses at least one upper-pressure device ([0129] air knife), with which the surface of the plastic film facing away from roller can be acted upon with air under upper pressure ([0129] air knife to improve adhesion of the film to the drum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify the invention of Hosokawa to include the use of an air knife acting on the side of the film opposite to the roller in order to improve adhesion of the film to the drum, as suggested by Otoshi ([0129]).
Regarding claim 12, Hosokawa is silent on at least one electrode with which the plastic film can be electrostatically charged upstream or at the line of contact of the plastic film with the first roller and/or the second roller.
Otoshi further discloses at least one electrode with which the plastic film can be electrostatically charged upstream or at the line of contact of the plastic film with the roller ([0129] electrostatic application method to improve adhesion of the film to the drum; [0317] 10kV wire placed 10cm from landing point for film for electrostatic pinning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to further modify the combination of Hosokawa and Otoshi to include the wire placed 10cm from the landing point of the film on the roller as disclosed by Otoshi in order electrostatically pin the film to the roller, improving adhesion of the film to the drum, as suggested by Otoshi ([0129]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 8 of applicant’s remarks that Pinter operates in a different technical field since the fiber webs in Pinter have different demands compared to Hosokawa’s film webs, the examiner disagrees, and notes the principles of the airflow rollers and the internal structures therein designed for controlling the vacuum distribution profile across the roller as disclosed by Pinter are transferrable concepts that would be understood as such by one of ordinary skill in the art and understood to be applicable to the rollers of Hosokawa.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that modifying Hosokawa’s teachings with the uneven vacuum force of Pinter would change the principle of operation of Hosokawa, the examiner disagrees. While Hosokawa does disclose that the film rests on the roller across its entire width, and if the airflow effect is insufficient, a vacuum source may be used, Hosokawa does not disclose or suggest that the vacuum force must be even across the entire width of the roller or film. Pinter teaches control over the vacuum distribution profile through the use of the internal roller structures, which may still be symmetrical across the width of the roller, and suggests only that the vacuum distribution profile may be finely controlled as desired.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 on page 9 of applicant’s remarks that it is not clear how Pinter’s disks could be combined with Hosokawa without rendering Hosokawa unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the examiner notes that, as stated in the rejection, the disks of Pinter could be added to further divide the cavity of the roller of Hosokawa, presumably within the inner shell of the double shell roller.
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 TIMOTHY HEMINGWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0235. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-4.
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 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights