DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed September 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 are currently amended. Claims 14 and 15 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-13 are under examination.
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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morino (JP 2020093404) in view of McGee et al. (GB 2282985) and either one of Kumar et al. (US 2018/0243800) or Kumar et al. (US 2019/0247891).
Regarding claim 1, Morino teaches and suggests a method of separating scrap produced during the manufacture of polymeric sheets, which would be suitable for covering a surface of a room (Figure 1 (G) (GS)), in which a polymeric material is fed to a calender comprising a plurality of temperature-controlled calender rollers (paragraphs [0020]-[0027]); an actual temperature of at least one calender roller is measured, the actual temperature is compared with a nominal temperature provided for this calender roller (paragraphs [0028]-[0039]; Figure 2 – showing variation around a desired/suitable/nominal temperature; Figure 1 (12)) (14)); and in the case that a difference between the actual temperature and the nominal temperature is outside a predefined tolerance amount, a part of a, which can be particular endless, semi-finished product exiting the calender is discharged as scrap (paragraphs [0009]-[0011], [0014], [0016], [0017], [0059], [0061]; Figure 2 – showing an abnormality outside of an acceptable tolerance).
Morino teaches that the purpose of the process is to use direct/actual measurements of the temperatures of the calendering rolls and to control those temperatures or maintain those within a suitable range (i.e. nominal temperatures) to suppress variation in product thickness (paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0033], [0034], [0036] and [0037]) because it is recognized that excessive or out of control surface temperatures result in undesired sheet thickness variation (paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0036[ and [0037]). While Morino is understandably interested in keeping temperature variation low so that good product having a desired and uniform thickness is maintained (paragraph [0039]), it is also clear in Morino that an “anomalous temperature increase’ (paragraph [0037]) may result in the opposite of “stable production of high-quality sheets with reduced thickness variation” (paragraph [0041]). “When a peak due to an unusual temperature rise is confirmed…it is determined that there is an abnormality” (paragraph [0059]) and normal operation of the process is stopped or adjusted until the abnormality is resolved. It is clear from the teaching of Morino that if the temperature increase/variation is larger than a recognized acceptable amount of temperature increase/variation, that the quality of the product is in jeopardy (smaller temperature increase/variations) or has already been compromised (larger temperature increases/variations) such that the product is no longer within specification (paragraphs [0036], [0037], [0039], [0041] and [0059]).
While Morino teaches the material is provided as a polymeric material in sheet form (paragraphs [0002], [0003], [0022] and [0041]; Figure 1 (G) (GS)), Morino does not explicitly teach how this polymeric material is provided.
However, McGee et al. teach an analogous method that includes calendering a polymeric sheet material wherein the material fed to the calender is provided as an extrudate of an extruder (Abstract; page 1, line 11-page 2, line 10; Figure 1).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morino and McGee et al. and to have extruded the polymeric material to form an extrudate ready to be fed to the calender in the method of Morino, as suggested by McGee et al., for the purpose, as suggested by McGee et al. of providing a sheet form material to the calender in an art recognized suitable and continuous manner.
Morino et al. do not explicitly teach tracking the material after it has experienced a temperature abnormality based on the product’s conveying speed through the process so that the appropriate material can be separated by a separating device when the material reaches the separating location. However, each of Kumar et al. ‘800 (paragraphs [0056], [0063], [0081], [0098], [0101], and [0111]; Figure 1 (105)) and Kumar et al. ‘891 (Figure 1 (105); Figure 2; paragraph [0053]) teach analogous methods wherein material that has been identified as being scrap (e.g. corresponding to an abnormality) is tracked based on the product’s conveying speed through the process so that the material can be separated by a separating device when the material reaches the separating location.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morino et al. and either one of Kumar et al. ‘800 or Kumar et al. ‘891 to have tracked the material after it has experienced a temperature abnormality based on the product’s conveying speed through the process so that the material can be separated by a separating device when the material reaches the separating location as claimed in the method of Morino et al., as suggested by either one of Kumar et al. ‘800 or Kumar et al. ‘891, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively removing the material that has experienced the temperature abnormality and therefore no longer has desired sheet properties while not removing material that still has desired sheet properties and while facilitating removal of the abnormal material at a suitable location along the processing direction.
Having identified the material as being off-spec/scrap based on the direct temperature reading, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only the off-spec/scrap material would need to be removed/separated and that utilizing line speed or system residence time or tracking the feed front of the material would be a straightforward manner of keeping tabs on it so that it could be effectively segregated at an appropriate time/location along the production line. While this determination is reasonably understood to be a routine expedient in view of the teaching of Morino et al. alone, each of Kumar et al. ‘800 and Kumar et al. 891 further flesh out the idea and one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success when attempting to incorporate the relied upon teaching of the Kumar et al. references in the method of Morino et al.
As to claim 2, Morino teach and suggest not processing the material normally after a temperature abnormality has been detected, including not continuing to process the material in the process (paragraphs [0059] and [0061]), but do not teach operating a smoothing unit as claimed. However, McGee et al. further teach an additional roll (9) can be utilized in the process to facilitate production of the sheet and a conveyor for transporting the calendered sheet is utilized and that the sheet is then provided with a plastic film (page 1, line 1-page 3, line 15; page 9, lines 18-32; Figure 1; Figure 7; Figure 8 (93) (94) (95) (96) – the rolls utilized to apply the film are understood to be a smoothing unit).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morino and McGee et al. and to have further processed the material of Morino with the downstream equipment of McGee et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing a suitable sheet material having dimensions and properties for a desired application. In the combination, it is further suggested that any low-quality material of Morino would no longer be processed in the same manner as the high-quality product once a temperature abnormality or adhesion abnormality has been detected (paragraphs [0059] and [0061]) in the calendering rolls (e.g. the rolls of Morino generally correspond with rolls (7) and (8) in McGee et al.) This suggests not smoothing the material with the additional rollers shown in Figure 7 and 8 of McGee et al., because one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to not apply an additional film to the surface of a known scrap/waste sheet material due to the extra cost required for no additional gain. With the teaching of Morino, the sheet is recognized as scrap before reaching the film application unit suggested by McGee et al. and one having ordinary skill equipped with this knowledge would not waste the film by applying it to a known scrap sheet.
As to claim 3, Morino teaches that the identification can take place exclusively on the basis of the measured actual temperature of the calender roll (paragraphs [0028]-[0041]; Figure 1 (12); paragraph [0062] – adhesion detection with sensor (24) is not required).
As to claims 4-8, McGee et al. further teach cutting/separating the endless product (page 2, lines 5-9), edge cutting the product (page 2, lines 5-9; Figure 10), and recycling/crushing/grinding the material as claimed (page 8, line 17-page 9, line 17; page 10, line 28-page 11, line 11).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Morino and McGee et al. and to have performed the additional processing steps as claimed on the material of Morino, as suggested by McGee et al. for the purpose, as suggested by McGee et al. of providing a product having a size and dimension suitable for an intended use and to recover he scrap material for future use. In the combination, each and every limitation of the claimed invention is taught or suggested. Tracking the location of the identified scrap material of Morino in the process is understood to be a routine expedient.
As to claim 9, Morino teaches the temperature is determined at an outer side of the roller (Figure 1 (12)).
As to claims 10-12, Morino teaches and suggests several measuring points and measuring of multiple rollers (paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0011], [0014], [0016], [0017], [0020]-[0041], [0054]). Further, duplicating the measurement either for redundancy or to measure the temperature of more locations of the roll(s), would have been prima facie obvious in order to have more reliable information and/or to identify variations at other locations of the roll(s).
As to claim 13, Morino suggest and render prima facie obvious cooling as claimed (Figure 1 (GS); paragraph [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 16, 2025 have been fully considered. The amendment to the claims has overcome the section 112b rejections. Applicant’s other arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment. It is submitted the claims would need to be further amended to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness.
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 Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights