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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 but claim 2 is cancelled.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokawa (US2018/0162033 A1) in view of Kempt et al (US 5,694,809).
Regarding claim 1, Hirokawa et al disclose a method of manufacturing an extrusion molded product (abstract), the method comprising: pulling a core member (3) by a first puller (26), the core member being made of a resin and molded into a desired shape [0001] in a first die (20);
molding an extrusion molded product by providing a covering portion made of a thermoplastic elastomer (5) over an outer periphery of the core member [0042], which has been pulled by the first puller, in a second die (23) and pulling the extrusion molded product by a second puller (28),
monitoring tension in the core member with a sensor unit provided between the first puller and the second puller, and
Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose adjusting a pulling speed of at least one of the first puller and the second puller adjusts, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, such that the tension in the core member between the first puller and the second puller falls within a predetermined range,
wherein the sensor unit includes core-member feeding rollers that are arranged between the first puller and the second puller with a gap formed between the core-member feeding rollers in a direction in which the core member is moved,
and a vertically-movable tension-applying roller that is provided between the core-member feeding rollers and is capable of moving up and down and applying tension to the core member, and
wherein in the monitoring of the tension in the core member with the sensor unit, the sensor unit monitors the tension in the core member based on a vertical position of the vertically- movable tension-applying roller.
However, analogous roller art, Kempf et al, discloses “sensing roller 34 of sensor 24 is positioned within a gap between conveyor 12 and pinch roll stand 18. As the dough sheet travels over the gap, the dough sheet "droops" within the gap as a function of the tension of the dough sheet. The amount of droop varies the vertical displacement of sensing roller 34. The greater the droop, the greater the displacement. The amount of vertical displacement is then measured, which is an indication of the tension in the dough sheet. The measurement can be used to automatically or manually adjust the production line equipment 10 to correct any irregularities in the dough sheet or in the equipment settings” (column 3 lines 22-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated adjusting a pulling speed of at least one of the first puller and the second puller adjusts, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, such that the tension in the core member between the first puller and the second puller falls within a predetermined range, wherein the sensor unit includes core-member feeding rollers that are arranged between the first puller and the second puller with a gap formed between the core-member feeding rollers in a direction in which the core member is moved, and a vertically-movable tension-applying roller that is provided between the core-member feeding rollers and is capable of moving up and down and applying tension to the core member, as taught by Kempf into the method taught by Hirokawa since (1) Hirokawa discloses vertically movable tension-applying rollers [0076-0077; figure 14) that is capable of moving up and down (vertically) and can have different pulling speeds [0066-0067], (2) Kemp teaches the gap between the sensors and the rollers and wherein in the monitoring of the tension in the core member with the sensor unit, the sensor unit monitors the tension in the core member based on a vertical position of the vertically- movable tension-applying roller for the benefit of correcting any irregularities in the molded product (column 3 lines 30-33) and adjusting tensions/speed (column 1 lines 20-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
729
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose tension. However, Hirokawa disclose changing the radius of curvature R1 and R2 and stress/tensions in the core member in order to form the desired shape of the final product [0008-0010, 0019-0020]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a sensor unit that monitors tension in the core member is provided between the first puller and the second puller, and at least one of the first puller and the second puller adjusts, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, a pulling speed such that the tension in the core member between the first puller and the second puller falls within a normal range since Hirokawa discloses 1.) stresses and tension in core members and 2.) sensors are provided in controlling the speed [0066]. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Hirokawa et al discloses the extrusion molded product according to wherein a cutting mechanism unit (28) that cuts the core member in such a manner as to form a groove by using a cutting blade [0045] and wherein the sensor unit applies tension to the core member, in which the groove has been formed by the cutting mechanism unit, in a direction in which the core member is easily bent.
Hirokawa doesn’t explicitly disclose cutting mechanism is provided between the first die and the first puller. However, MPEP 2144.04 states In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975). The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cutting mechanism between the first die and the first puller since it is within the skillset of one ordinary skilled in the art and through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokawa (US2018/0162033 A1) in view of Kempt et al (US 5,694,809), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Tunc (US2002/0125595 A1).
Regarding claim 4-5, Hirokawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the second puller pulls, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, the extrusion molded product at a pulling speed without stopping wherein an upper limit speed and a lower limit speed of the pulling speed of the second puller are each within +12.5% of a pulling speed of the first pulle; wherein the first puller pulls, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, the core member at a pulling speed with an upper limit speed and a lower limit speed each of which is within +12.5% of a pulling speed of the second puller without stopping. However, analogous art, Tunc, discloses the speed of the first and second puller is either the same [abstract] or the speed difference may be between a factor of 2 and 12 times [0031] which overlaps with applicant’s range of wherein the second puller pulls, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, the extrusion molded product at a pulling speed with an upper limit speed and a lower limit speed each of which is within +12.5% of a pulling speed of the first puller without stopping; wherein the first puller pulls, based on the tension in the core member monitored by the sensor unit, the core member at a pulling speed with an upper limit speed and a lower limit speed each of which is within +12.5% of a pulling speed of the second puller without stopping. MPEP 2144.04 states overlapping range is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a range of the upper limit and the lower limit is within +12.5% in order to balance excessive slipping [0032].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in light the newly cited reference
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754