DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “Indeed, FIG. 5 shows that the distance between
the bubble and the stabilizing device is at a minimum the same distance along the extent of the first and third member portions of the stabilizing device…. As such, Planeta cannot read on this element of amended claim 1.” (Remarks Pg. 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
332
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner agrees that FIG. 5 shows that the distance between the bubble and the stabilizing device is at a minimum the same distance along the extent of the first and third member portions of the stabilizing device. Thus, Planeta reads on this element of claim 1 because the claim does not require that the tip to film distance is shorted than anywhere else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 1, 8-11, 15, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wybenga (US 20170239867 A1) and further in view of Planeta (US 4728277 A).
In reference to claim 1, Wybenga discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a blown film,
at least one extruder configured to generate at least one melted resin (“a die head for extruding a tubular polymer bubble” [Abstract]. See Fig 1 and 4).;
at least one melt piper configured to convey the at least one melted resin; (See Fig 1)
a blown film die configured to dispense an annular molten flow, to form a molten film tube; (“extrusion die head 16, from which the polymer is downwardly extruded and internally inflated by air pressure to form a bubble 20 of film” [P0017]. If the die is used to form a bubble, then the die must be a blown film die because bubbles are formed by blowing. Also, see Fig 1 and 4.);
at least one cooling element configured to cool the molten film tube with at least one flow of a cooling gas provided around the molten film tube (“air cooling ring 42” [P0029]),
Wybenga does not specifically disclose the at least one cooling element has a deflector as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, high performance cooling systems, Planeta discloses an improved cooling element for receiving a flow of a molten film tube having a divergent cooling interface comprising at least one cooling element configured to cool the molten film tube with at least one flow of cooling gas provided around the molten film tube the cooling element includes a gas deflector configured to divide the at least one flow of cooling gas into a first partial flow of cooling gas and a second partial flow of cooling gas, wherein (i) the first partial flow of cooling gas is directed in a path opposing the flow of the molten film tube toward a first exit tip. and (ii) the second partial flow of cooling gas is directed in a path with the flow of the molten film tube toward a second exit tip, wherein a first distance between the first exit tip and the annular molten flow and a second distance between the second exit tip and the annular molten flow defines a minimum gap between at least one cooling element and the molten film tube (Fig 5, shown below) in order to improve film tube stability (Abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
359
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus such that the at least one cooling element comprising a divergent cooling element as claimed.
In reference to claim 8-11, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 1.
Planeta further discloses cooling comprising multiple air rings as claimed (see Fig 4, 7, 8, or 9; and description thereof) in order to improve film tube stability and properties such as clarity (e.g., see “when the devices take the ring form illustrated by FIG. 4 onwards, they will stabilize and fix the diameter of the adjacent portion of the tubular bubble, and this effect has a number of potentially useful results… particularly suitable for application to the production of high clarity films” (C7L60-C8L10).
The combination would be achievable by integrating the multiple cooling rings arrangement of Planeta in the combination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the apparatus such that the apparatus further comprises one of a single flow air ring, a dual flow air ring, a triple flow air ring, and a multiple flow air ring having an air ring cooling interface adjacent the divergent cooling element, operable to expel cooling gas in the path with the flow of the molten film tube;
wherein the divergent at least one cooling element is in contact with the one of a single flow air ring, a dual flow air ring, a triple flow air ring, and a multiple flow air ring, substantially preventing gas exchange with the surrounding atmosphere between the at least one cooling element and the one of a single flow air ring, a dual flow air ring, a triple flow air ring, and a multiple flow air ring;
wherein a space is defined between the one of a single flow air ring, a dual flow air ring, a triple flow air ring, and a multiple flow air ring and the divergent at least one cooling element to allow gas exchange with a surrounding atmosphere.
In reference to claims 15, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 1.
Wybenga further discloses wherein the apparatus is further comprising at least one enclosure comprising a cavity for receiving at least a portion of the expelled cooling gas, the at least one enclosure operable to maintain a predetermined pressure differential between an inside surface and outside surface of the flow of the molten film tube, wherein the unidirectional cooling element and the divergent cooling element are maintained within the cavity (The “differential between P and P2” as shown in Fig 4 must be maintained to control the bubble size [P0034]),
In reference to claims 24, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 1.
Wybenga further discloses wherein the at least one enclosure comprises at least one port maintaining a variable exhaust device (“vents 60” [P0028]”) operable for expelling at least a portion of the cooling gas from the cavity through the at least one port to a surrounding atmosphere to maintain the predetermined pressure differential (“for permitting air flow from the chamber volume to the atmosphere” [Abstract]. See Fig 2 and P0008).
In reference to claims 25, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 1.
Wybenga further discloses wherein the at least one enclosure comprises at least one flow buffer comprising a passage into the cavity, the passage fluidly connecting the cavity to the surrounding atmosphere allowing a flow of gas into and out of the cavity (“pressure "P2" within the chamber volume (that is, the pressure within pressure chamber 40) can be controlled by controlling the air flow into air cooling ring 42, as well as the position of vents 60” [P0029]).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wybenga (US 20170239867 A1) and further in view of Planeta (US 4728277 A) and further in view of Wybenga-462 (US 6068462 A).
In reference to claims 26, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 7.
Wybenga further discloses the use of “control signals to control valves 50 and 54, as well as vents 60, to regulate P and P2… to regulate P based on the previously mentioned target size for bubble 20 and the measured size of bubble 20” (P0030). However, the combination does not specifically disclose using flapper valves.
In the same field of endeavor, high performance cooling systems, Wybenga-462 discloses the use of flapper valves to control communicative air flow between the enclosure and atmosphere in a blown film tube line (C11L9-15).
Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus such that the at least one flow buffer comprises a moveable flapper operable to (i) variably obstruct a flow of gas through the passage and (ii) indicate a direction and quantity of the flow of gas through the passage.
Claim 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wybenga (US 20170239867 A1) and further in view of Planeta (US 4728277 A) and further in view of Herrington (US 3976732 A).
In reference to claim 27, the combination discloses the apparatus as in claim 1.
The combination does not teach the specific throughput of the apparatus on a (pounds/hour)/(inch of die circumference) basis.
In the same field of endeavor, external cooling systems for molten film tube, Herrington discloses a similar system having cooling elements comprised of “diverging channels 42a and 42b” (C6L11-12, See bottom right portion of Fig 1) and operable for processing molten film tube at a rate of “preferably 4 to 20, pounds per hour per inch” (C5L46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of the combination to cool molten film tube at a rate between 0.5 and 5 (pounds/hour)/(inch of die circumference).
It would be obvious to use the apparatus according to known processing conditions such as preferably 4 to 20, pounds per hour per inch as disclosed by Herrington.
Furthermore, The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS R KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights