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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed June 8, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 7 are currently amended. Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites that the “viscosity of a melted raw material” is determined by “determining at least one of a number of fish eyes in the plastic film, a Young’s modulus of the plastic film, and a cooling behavior of the plastic film”. The subject matter was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey possession of the claimed invention. The instant specification does not disclose determining the viscosity of the melted raw material by any of the three recited methods. The instant specification does disclose that the property to be detected can be the number of fish eyes in the film or the Young’s modulus of the film, but it does not relate or correlate these detected properties with the viscosity of the raw material. Viscosity, fish eyes, and Young’s modulus are disclosed as distinct and different properties that can be detected as part of executing the claimed and disclosed process. There is nothing in the specification that appears to suggest the now claimed relationship/dependence upon these properties or the determination of one property from the other property/properties. Further, while paragraph [0037] of the published application does state that “viscosity can also be a decisive factor for the cooling behavior of the film”, this does not disclose or demonstrate possession of the now claimed method of determining the viscosity of the melt by determining a cooling behavior of the film. Further, it is not clear from the specification how one would make such a determination. This is not disclosed and the specification does not demonstrate possession of this subject matter. The rejection can be overcome by pointing to the location in the original disclosure where support for the limitations can be found or by amending the claim in a manner supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as dependent claims.
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 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites determining the viscosity of the melted raw material by determining “a cooling behavior of the film”. The limiting effect of the recitation is unclear. It is not clear what is necessarily intended by “a cooling behavior”. It is not clear how “cooling behavior” is to be determined, quantified, or evaluated. It is not clear whether this is directed to the rate of cooling of the material under certain unclear conditions, the physical properties of the material associated with cooling (e.g. shrinkage, formation of surface defects due to the way the material is cooled) or whether something else that remains unclear is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
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