DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-7 have been examined and rejected. This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on March 30, 2026, which has been entered in the above identified application.
Specification
3. The corrections to the specification have been approved, and the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
4. The corrections to claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 have been approved, and the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On [line 14] of the claim, Examiner suggests changing “based out the output” to --based on the output”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. The corrections to claims 1 and 7 have been approved, and the rejections to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lossl et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,338,491) in view of Schumacher et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0315037).
8-1. Regarding claim 1, Lossl teaches the claim comprising the following steps: detecting machine parameters relating to properties and/or settings of at least one film extrusion machine, by disclosing a two-stage design process that allows a person to set specific machine variables so as to produce a specific product having specific product characteristics [column 8, lines 20-23] by using a machine-dependent sensor model and a product-dependent process model [column 9, lines 6-26, 41-48]. Machine variables may be identified by means of which particular product characteristics are to be achieved [column 8, lines 24-29; figures 2-3].
Lossl teaches detecting film parameters relating to desired properties of the film, by disclosing that film characteristics may be set, on the process model, by means of various stages or segments, i.e., individual steps of the manufacturing process in such a way that the film ultimately manufactured thus exhibits the desired product characteristics [column 11, lines 27-31].
Lossl teaches detecting raw material parameters relating to properties of the raw materials, by disclosing that production variables, such as the starting material for manufacturing a plastics film web [column 4, lines 45-56; figure 3], are in a functional correlation with the machine variables and the process variables [column 5, lines 1-8]. This includes raw material parameters [column 21, lines 13-16]. If an operator wishes to amend specific process variables for a plastics film that is to be produced, the process model determines new production variables in order to achieve said product characteristics [column 20, lines 59-66].
Lossl teaches inputting the detected parameters in a film production model, by disclosing that an operator may amend specific process variables for the plastics film that is to be produced and a software-controlled assistant program can submit proposals of how best to amend which parameters in order to achieve a desired aim [column 10, lines 33-37]. When developing a product, an operator may directly set the final product characteristic of the finished plastics film, and the setting values dependent thereon are then achieved automatically and in a system-assisted manner [column 12, lines 7-26].
Although Lossl discloses correlating the production variables with the process variables of the plastics film to be manufactured based on the two-stage setting model [Lossl, column 12, lines 7-24], Lossl does not expressly teach the film comprising at least two layers, and calculating a selection and/or an amount of raw materials for each layer of the film from the total quantity of raw materials based on the detected parameters and the film production model. Schumacher discloses a method for deriving a systematic dependence in a production process of a film web between a setting variable of the production process and an optical property of the produced film web [paragraphs 2, 20]. This includes a variety of systematic dependencies between properties and/or functional and/or geometric properties of the film web and setting variables of the manufacturing process of the film web [paragraphs 91, 110-112]. Such functional properties that are associated with optical properties of the film comprise used raw materials, proportions of raw materials, and proportions of recycled material [paragraphs 92-95]. In one embodiment, a measured variable determines functional properties of the film web depending on the optical properties, in particular the raw materials used and/or the proportion of each raw materials and/or the proportion of recyclate [paragraphs 147, 149]. This dependency can be quantified, stored, and then used to achieve a more precise property of the film [paragraphs 70-71]. This may be used in a variety of different art-like manufacturing devices for the production of film webs [paragraphs 128, 150, 280]. The film web may be multi-layered [paragraph 24]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as part of the process model of Lossl, a derived dependence used to calculate the amount of raw materials to use for each layer of a multi-layer film based on a product characteristic of the film, as taught by Schumacher. This would provide a stronger film and help ensure proper product development.
Lossl-Schumacher teach outputting information relating to the selection and/or the amount of raw materials for each layer of the film, by disclosing that a software-controlled assistant program can submit proposals on how best to amend which parameters in order to achieve a desired aim [Lossl, column 10, lines 33-37]. Such a proposal to produce a product having desired characteristics include an amount of raw material in a multi-layer film [Schumacher, paragraphs 24, 91-95, 147, 149].
Lossl-Schumacher teach producing the film using the at least one film extrusion machine, wherein each layer of the film is melted and extruded based out the output information relating to the selection and/or the amount of raw materials, by disclosing producing the multi-layer film by feeding raw materials to an extrusion process [Lossl, column 6, lines 1-48; Schumacher, paragraph 24, 147, 149, 280].
8-2. Regarding claim 3, Lossl-Schumacher teach all the limitations of claim 1, additionally comprising the following step: calculating expected properties of the film based on the film production model, by disclosing predicting product characteristics from particular machine variables [Lossl, column 8, lines 24-30].
8-3. Regarding claim 4, Lossl-Schumacher teach all the limitations of claim 1, additionally comprising the following step: considering previous orders when calculating the selection and/or amounts of raw materials, by disclosing that proceeding from fixed product characteristics, a process model specifies the production variables necessary therefor by means of suitable methods, such as machine learning algorithms [Lossl, column 12, lines 41-44].
8-4. Regarding claim 5, Lossl-Schumacher teach all the limitations of claim 1, additionally comprising the following steps: detecting batch-specific properties of at least a part of the raw materials, considering said batch-specific properties, calculating a selection and/or amount of raw materials, by disclosing that production variables, such as the starting material for manufacturing a plastics film web [Lossl, column 4, lines 45-56; figure 3], are in a functional correlation with the machine variables and the process variables [Lossl, column 5, lines 1-8]. This includes raw material parameters [Lossl, column 21, lines 13-16]. If an operator wishes to amend specific process variables for a plastics film that is to be produced, the process model determines new production variables in order to achieve said product characteristics [Lossl, column 20, lines 59-66]. The amount of raw material may be calculated based on desired properties of the product [Lehman, column 1, lines 13-22].
8-5. Regarding claim 6, Lossl-Schumacher teach all the limitations of claim 1 additionally comprising the following steps: detecting at least one property of the film, calculating the deviation of said at least one property from an expected property of the film, inferring at least one property of a raw material, by disclosing that proceeding from fixed product characteristics, a process model specifies the production variables necessary therefor by means of suitable methods, such as machine learning algorithms [Lossl, column 12, lines 41-44], which relies on calculating deviations. Thus, the process model would be able to learn how certain production variables, such as a starting material, affects certain product characteristics. This correlation between production variable and product characteristic may be considered a property of the production variable.
8-6. Regarding claim 7, Lossl-Schumacher teach a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the instructions are executed on a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of a method comprising the features of Claim 1, by disclosing a control apparatus for manufacturing and/or treating a plastics film [Lossl, column 3, lines 34-40].
9. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lossl et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,338,491), in view of Schumacher et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0315037), and further in view of Shioyama et al (Pub. No. US 2005/0174880).
9-1. Regarding claim 2, Lossl-Schumacher teach all the limitations of claim 1. Lossl-Schumacher do not expressly teach the claim additionally comprising the following step: specifying a recommendation of a film extrusion machine on which the film is produced. Shioyama discloses determining a suitable molding machine, such as a particular extrusion machine, based upon the shape of a desired molded product [paragraph 19]. This would allow the product to be produced more efficiently. Since Lossl-Schumacher disclose a software-controlled assistant program can submit proposals on how best to amend which parameters in order to achieve a desired aim [Lossl, column 10, lines 33-37], 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 assistant program of Lehman to recommend a suitable extrusion machine based on characteristics of the product, as taught by Shioyama. This would allow the product to be produced more efficiently.
Response to Arguments
10. The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, 6, and 7.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant alleges that Lossl et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,338,491) in view of Lehman (U.S. patent No. 6,230,521) do not expressly teach “a film comprising at least two layers,” “calculating a selection and/or an amount of raw materials for each layer of the film…,” and “producing the film using at least one film extrusion machine, wherein each layer of the film is extruded based on the output information relating to the selection and/or the amount of raw materials,” as has been amended to the claim. Examiner has rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lossl et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,338,491) in view of Schumacher et al (Pub. No. US 2019/0315037). Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant states that dependent claims 2-7 recite all the limitations of the independent claims, and thus, are allowable in view of the remarks set forth regarding independent claim 1. However, as discussed above, Lossl in view of Schumacher are considered to teach claim 1, and consequently, claims 2-7 are rejected.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights