DETAILED ACTION
In Request for Continuation filed on 09/01/2025, claims 1-8 and 10-11 are pending. Claims 6-8 are withdrawn based on the Restriction requirement. Claim 9 is cancel. Claims 1 and 10-11 are currently amended. Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 3 are withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However new rejections are established.
35 USC 103 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s argument. However, new rejections have been established.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is interpreting the limitation “cooling section comprising roller pairs arranged one after the other comprising the upstream rollers and downstream rollers downstream from the two cooling or calibrating upstream roller” recited in claim 1 as the cooling section comprises a plurality of roller pairs and the first roller pair within the cooling section is interpreted as the upstream rollers and the second roller pair, following the first roller pair, is interpreted as the downstream rollers. Both of these roller pairs are then located downstream from the two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…a cooling section comprising roller pairs arranged one after the others comprising the upstream rollers and downstream rollers downstream from the two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers”. At most, the specification discloses “the film being cooled in a cooling section composed of roller pairs arranged one after the other ([0012])”. Nothing in the specification disclose “the upstream rollers and downstream rollers downstream from the two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers” as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claim 1 recites “changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of the downstream rollers relative to a temperature of the upstream rollers”. At most, the specification discloses “the film being cooled in a cooling section composed of roller pairs arranged one after the other ([0012])” and “changing the film temperature by changing the temperature of the downstream rollers ([0013])”. Nothing in the specification disclose “changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of the downstream rollers relative to a temperature of the upstream rollers” as recited in claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is rejected as fails to comply with the written description.
Claims 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "comprising the upstream rollers" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, the upstream rollers, in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…wherein changing the film temperature in step is based on an optimal polypropylene crystal nucleus formation temperature”. It is unclear as to which “step” this limitation is referring to. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting it as changing the film temperature in step b which is consistent with [0018] of the instant application.
Claims 2-5 and 10-11 are rejected by virtue of depending on a rejected claim 1.
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, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2431153 B1 (Roth), machine translation provided, in view of CN101746031A (Jiang’031), machine translation provided, and CN102337018 (“Jiang et al” hereinafter Jiang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/16/2025.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Roth teaches a method for manufacturing a film made of a semi-crystalline plastics material (abstract, it is known in the art that material, polypropylene which is a semi-crystalline plastic is use for such manufacturing method [0005]), the method ([0001]) comprising:
a) shaping the film using a calender in which a melt coming from a slotted nozzle is introduced into a nip between two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers (see annotated Figure 1, extruder 1 with nozzle discharged melt material into a nip between main rollers of a smoothing unit 2. The main roller functions as calibrating roller as they compress and smooth the surface of the film), the film being calendered between the two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers (Figure 1, the film calendered between the calibrating rollers), the film being cooled in a cooling section comprising roller pairs arranged one after the other comprising the upstream rollers and downstream rollers downstream from the two cooling or calibrating upstream rollers (Figure 1, post-cooling rollers 3, the film enter a cooling section with roller pairs arranged one after the other for any suitable number of rollers [0016] located downstream of the calibrating rollers);
b) changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of the downstream rollers (see annotated Figure 1, [0016], the temperature of the cooling rollers 3 can be controlled and/or regulated. As the temperature of the cooling rollers changed, the temperature of the film also changed), the film temperature being detected using sensors ([0022], The temperature of the film in the inlet area of the thermoforming machine is recorded using a measuring device, in this case an infrared sensor); and
c) after step b),cooling the film down further to a film temperature that allows the film to be spooled ([0013], film is wrap around the cooling rollers to cool down the film. Once the film is cool down, it will solidify and allows to be spooled).
Roth fails to teach changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of the downstream rollers relative to a temperature of the upstream rollers.
However, Jiang’031 teaches changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of the downstream rollers relative to a temperature of the upstream rollers (page 2, lines 19-22, the invention also uses a cooling roller, which can adjust the position and temperature of the cooling roller according to the flatness of the sheet 20 surface in real time (the position and temperature of the cooling roller can be adjusted separately or 21 simultaneously)).
Roth and Jiang’031 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of using three rollers calender to form a sheet. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Roth such that it discloses all of the above discussed limitations as taught by Jiang’031 to ensure that the flatness of the sheet meets the desired requirement and desired transparent level (page 2, line 22).
Roth further teaches the temperature of the cooling rollers can be controlled and/or regulated [0016], but fails to teach the film temperature within a defined temperature range between 128°C and 138°C and wherein the temperature of the film being kept in the defined temperature range between 128°C and 138◦C in step b), thereby preventing an automatic formation of further crystals.
However, Jiang teaches the film temperature within a defined temperature range between 128°C and 138°C (page 2, lines 30-34, adjusting the temperature of the three-roll calender to 50-280 ° C, an amorphous or semi-crystalline solid can be obtained ) and wherein the temperature of the film being kept in a defined temperature range between 128°C and 138◦C in step b) (page 2, lines 30-34, adjusting the temperature of the three-roll calender to 50-280° C, an amorphous or semi-crystalline solid can be obtained), thereby preventing the automatic formation of further crystals (as the temperature of the film changed, it is implied that the automatic formation of further crystals is prevented based on the selected temperature).
Roth and Jiang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of forming film with semi-crystalline material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Roth such that the temperature of the film being kept in a defined temperature range between 128°C and 138◦C in step b), thereby preventing the automatic formation of further crystals as taught by Jiang to adjust the ratio of amorphous or semi-crystalline structure based on the cooling temperature of the roller (page 2, lines 30-34). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to selected the overlapping ranges of temperature of the film to form the desired end product with a desired layer thickness (Jiang, page 2, lines 30-34). Since the claimed range overlaps or lies inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Please see MPEP 2144.05(I).
The modified Roth fails to explicitly teach changing a film temperature by changing a temperature of downstream rollers will thereby achieving a maximum number of crystallization nuclei. As the number of crystallization nuclei is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the film temperature, with said the number of crystallization nuclei increases as the film temperature increases ([0017]). The precise number of crystallization nuclei would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed number of crystallization nuclei cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of crystallization nuclei in the method of Roth to obtain the film temperature (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein polypropylene is used as the semi-crystalline plastics material (Roth, abstract, it is known in the art that material, polypropylene which is a semi-crystalline plastic is use for such manufacturing method [0005]).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim 1 wherein the film is additionally calibrated in the downstream rollers (due to lack of specific definition from the instant application for the term calibrated, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation as any pressure/force applied to the film can act as calibration to the film. In this case Roth teaches the film travel through the post-cooling rollers 3, Figure 1 and [0016], which applied force to the film and also calibrated the temperature of the film), the position of the downstream rollers with respect to one another being changed by adjustment elements (Roth, [0014], the adjustment of the post-cooling rollers can be carried out horizontally-in or against the extrusion direction. Furthermore, the adjustment can be done not only centrally, but also individually which implied the presence of an adjustment element), as a result of which the prevailing roller nip between each roller pair is changed ([0017], the depth of penetration of the post-cooling rollers are controlled. Thus, as the depth of penetration increased, the roller nip increased as the distance between each roller pair decreased).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method executed in a stretching system (optional limitation) or a thermoforming system in an inline system (Roth, Figure 1, the film is then transfers to the thermoforming machine 6 in an integrated directly manner).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach after step c), the film comprises no supercrystalline structures. However, the modified Roth discloses the same method steps as the instant application using the same semi-crystalline plastics materials (see claim 1 rejection above). Roth further discloses the temperature of the cooling rollers 3 can be controlled and/or regulated ([0016]). It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2431153 B1 (Roth), machine translation provided, in view of CN101746031A (Jiang’031), machine translation provided, and CN102337018 (“Jiang et al” hereinafter Jiang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/16/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2007/0267774 (Ueda).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim1, Roth teaches it is known in the art that material, polypropylene which is a semi-crystalline plastic is use for such manufacturing method ([0005]) but fails to teach the method further comprising adding fillers.
However, Ueda teaches using thermoplastic resins for manufacturing film ([0361]) and further comprising adding fillers ([0166], adding various additives to improve the uniformity of the coating film, the strength of the film and the orientation of liquid crystalline molecules [0311]).
Roth and Helmut are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of forming film with polypropylene material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the method of Roth to add fillers as taught by Ueda to improve the uniformity of the coating film, the strength of the film and the orientation of liquid crystalline molecules [0311]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2431153 B1 (Roth), machine translation provided, in view of CN101746031A (Jiang’031), machine translation provided, and CN102337018 (“Jiang et al” hereinafter Jiang), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 01/16/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of evidentiary reference, WO2007/114647 (Cho et al).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified Roth teaches the method according to claim 2. Roth discloses it is known in the art that material, polypropylene which is a semi-crystalline plastic is use for such manufacturing method [0005] and the temperature of the cooling rollers 3 can be controlled and/or regulated ([0016]) to fails to maintain the optimum cooling capacity depending on the desired final temperature ([0017]); Roth fails to explicitly teach wherein changing the film temperature in step is based on an optimal polypropylene crystal nucleus formation temperature.
As the growth velocity of the crystalline nuclei is a variable that can be modified by adjusting said the film temperature, with said growth velocity of the crystalline nuclei increases as the film temperature increase to an optimal point before the film temperature decrease, as evidenced by Cho et al (page 11, lines 14-22), the precise film temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed film temperature cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the film temperature in the method of Roth to obtain desired growth velocity of the crystalline nuclei as evidenced by Cho et al (page 12, lines 2-4). (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Applicant argues Roth’s object and purpose of making possible a constant film temperature discloses the opposite of cooling down a film in one step more than in another step. Therefore, the Applicant submits that Roth fails to disclose or suggest the feature of after step b), cooling the film down further as claimed.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed. Firstly, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Roth teaches the temperature of the cooling rollers can be controlled and/or regulated [0016] and the main roller functions as calibrating roller followed by cooling rollers as shown in the annotated Figure 1 above. Roth reference is not relied upon to discloses changing the film temperature of the cooling rollers into different temperature, see rejection for claim 1 above. Furthermore, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (MPEP 2144. IV). In addition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. In this case, under BRI, any further cooling, even if it is by 1°C will read upon the claimed “cooling the film down further”. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754