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 December 4, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are currently amended. Claim 7 is new. Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the main raw material”. The recitation lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Appropriate correction and clarification are required. It is further unclear whether the recited 51% is directed to weight%, volume%, or whether something else is intended. Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haerth et al. (US 2018/0326638).
Regarding claim 1, Haerth et al. teach method for producing a plastic film from a total quantity of raw materials in a film extrusion machine comprising providing a selection of raw materials from a total quantity of raw materials (Abstract; Figure 2; paragraphs [0012], [0033]-[0043]); setting machine and production parameters of the film extrusion machine (Abstract; paragraph [0010]); supplying the selection of raw materials to the film extrusion machine in a composition (Figure 2 (1) (3)); detecting at least one actual value of a property of the plastic film (Figure 2 (2); Abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0014]-[0016]); forming a difference between the actual value and a target value of the property (Abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0019], [0022]-[0024], [0033]-[0043]); changing the selection of raw materials and/or the composition of the raw materials if the difference exceeds a threshold (Abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0019], [0022]-[0024], [0033]-[0043]); wherein the following step is carried for detecting the property of the plastic film: determining a viscosity of a melted raw material forming a layer of the plastic film; whereby the respective determining step is carried out directly and/or indirectly (Abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0019], [0022]-[0024], [0033]-[0043]). As set forth above, the limitations of the claims are understood to be explicitly or intrinsically taught by the method of Haerth et al.
Alternatively, to the extent that Haerth et al. do not utilize the exact same language as that set forth in the claim, each of the claimed steps is at least strongly suggested/implied by the process control scheme disclosed by Haerth et al. in order to effectively control the viscosity of the film through loop-back online viscosity control to a predefined value (Abstract; paragraph [0002]) utilizing routine and suggested process control steps. To the extent one may suggest that the language in Haerth et al. that is understood to intrinsically disclose the claimed limitations (e.g. “setting machine and production parameters of the film extrusion machine”) is not necessarily required, it is submitted that one having ordinary skill in the art, at a minimum, would recognize that such teaching is implicit in Haerth et al. and that one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Haerth et al. is suggesting an improved method of providing process control to an extrusion process that already includes basic providing, setting and supplying of raw materials and parameters as set forth in the claim and would have found it prima facie obvious to implement the detecting, forming and changing limitations disclosed by Haerth et al. in such a conventional process (e.g. following a production recipe for process setpoints and raw material setpoints as a starting point).
Like the instant application (e.g. see paragraphs [0004], [0021], and [0022] of the published application), Haerth et al. do not utilize changes to process parameters to achieve the desired viscosity, but change the raw material amounts and/or composition to achieve the desired viscosity property.
As to claims 2 and 3, Haerth et al. utilize a production model and maintain the temperature within the disclosed range (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0012], [0014]-[0032]). As set forth above, the limitations of the claims are understood to be explicitly or intrinsically taught by the method of Haerth et al. Alternatively, to the extent that Haerth et al. do not utilize the exact same language as that set forth in the claim, each of the claimed steps is at least suggested by the process of Haerth et al. in order to effectively control the viscosity of the film through loop-back online viscosity control to a predefined value (Abstract; paragraph [0002]) utilizing routine and suggested process control steps and would have been prima facie obvious for the same reasons set forth above.
As to claim 5, Haerth et al. teach several raw materials, including a main raw material/polyvinyl acetal resin and at least two ancillary raw materials, including plasticizers, additives, and other polyvinyl acetal resins wherein the ancillary raw materials are changed as claimed to achieve the desired viscosity (Abstract; paragraphs [0010], [0012], [0019], [0022]-[0024], [0033]-[0043], [0050]).
As to claim 6, Haerth et al. teach loop-back process control (paragraphs [0002]). In the context of the method of Haerth et al. set forth above and as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, this is understood to disclose the instructions as claimed. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to store the process control instructions on a computer readable medium as claimed to ensure the logic of the process control system is not lost accidently. It is also noted that neither Haerth et al. nor the instant application explicitly utilize the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions” language. However, within the context of both Haerth et al. and the instant application, this is understood to be at least implicitly disclosed.
As to claim 7, Haerth et al. teach polyvinyl acetal resin as a main raw material in amounts as claimed (paragraphs [0023], [0040], [0043]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haerth et al. (US 2018/0326638), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Schwartz et al. (US 3,999,045)
As to claim 4, Haerth et al. teach the method set forth above. Further, Haerth et al. teach a range of additives can be added including colorants/pigments (paragraph [0050]). Haerth et al. do not further teach the detecting of the property of the plastic film further includes determining a thickness as claimed.
However, Schwartz et al. teach an analogous method for producing a plastic film from a total quantity of raw materials in a film extrusion machine (Abstract; Figures 1 and 2) comprising: providing a selection of raw materials from a total quantity of raw materials (col. 1, lines 12-38; col. 2, lines 27-35; col. 2, lines 54-col. 3, line 6; Figure 1 (10)), setting machine and production parameters of the film extrusion machine (col. 5, lines 18-37; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12; Figure 1 (10) (11) (12)), supplying the selection of raw materials to the film extrusion machine in a composition (col. 5, lines 18-37; col. 5, lines 57-col. 6, line 12; Figure 1 (10) (11) (12)), detecting at least one actual value of a property of the plastic film (Abstract; Figure 1 (14) (15) (16) (17) (18); Figure 5; col. 2, lines 27-40; col. 3, lines 7-67; col. 4, lines 3-17; col. 5, lines 1-18; col. 8, lines 48-52), forming a difference between the actual value and a target value of the property (Figure 1 (15) (16) (17); Figure 5; col. 2, lines 27-40; col. 3, lines 7-67; col. 4, lines 3-17; col. 5, lines 1-18; col. 8, lines 48-52), changing the selection of raw materials and/or the composition of the raw materials if the difference exceeds a threshold (Figure 1 (19) (20) (22) (24); Figure 5; col. 2, lines 27-40; col. 3, lines 7-67; col. 4, lines 3-17; col. 5, lines 1-18; col. 8, lines 48-52); wherein the thickness of the film is detected as claimed (col. 2, lines 27-40; col. 3, lines 7-67; col. 4, lines 3-17).
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 Haerth et al. and Schwartz et al. and to have detected the thickness of the film as claimed in the method of Haerth et al., as suggested by Schwartz et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Schwartz et al., of producing a film having the desired coloring/pigmentation and thickness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2016/0009014) in view of any one of Durand et al. (US 2018/0022007), Rao (US 5,014,545), or Emery et al. (US 4,448,736).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitz teaches and suggests a method for producing a plastic film (62) from a total quantity of raw materials in a film extrusion machine (10) comprising providing a selection of raw materials from a total quantity of raw materials (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]-[0003, [0009], [0011], [0016], [0018], [0038] and [0048]); setting machine and production parameters of the film extrusion machine (paragraphs [0012]-[0018]); supplying the selection of raw materials to the film extrusion machine in a composition (Figure 1 (10) (20)); detecting at least one actual value of a property of the plastic film (paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0047]-[0049] (70)); forming a difference between the actual value and a target value of the property (Abstract; paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0009], [0011]-[0018], [0038] and [0048])). Further, Schmitz provides a general suggestion regarding changing the selection of raw materials and/or the composition of the raw materials if the difference exceeds a threshold (e.g. formulation language throughout the disclosure; paragraphs [0016], [0038] and [0048]); and further suggest a viscosity deviation (paragraph [0035]). However, Schmitz does not make it explicitly clear that the detection is a viscosity of a melted raw material as claimed such that the selection of raw materials and/or the composition is changed based on the determined viscosity of a melted raw material forming a layer as claimed.
However, each of Durand et al. (paragraphs [0074]-[0080]), Rao (Abstract; Figure 1; col. 1, line 49-col. 2, line 7; col. 3, lines 28-66), or Emery et al. (Abstract; Figures 1-10; col. 1, lines 5-18; col. 2, line 54-col. 5, line 38) provide analogous teaching wherein the detected property is viscosity as claimed and the raw materials and/or the composition are changed as claimed in response to the detected measurement as required.
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 Schmitz with any one of the secondary references and to have detected the viscosity of a melted raw material forming a layer of the plastic film as claimed and to have then utilized the difference and a deviation from a threshold target to change the selection of raw materials and/or composition in the method of Durand et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of controlling the properties of the produced article to a desired value and by ensuring a desired compositional ratio of materials is being processed and maintained. In the combination, each and every limitation of the claimed invention is taught and suggested.
As to claims 2 and 3, the combination of references as set forth above further teaches and suggests a production model as claimed and maintaining machine and production parameters to desired values as claimed. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claims 5 and 7, the combination suggests the method set forth above. Schmitz further suggests a plurality of materials may be utilized (paragraph [0002]) and the secondary references teach and suggest modifying additives/ancillary materials to change the selection and/or composition as required to achieve the desired properties. The amount of a raw material is rendered prima facie obvious in view of this teaching (e.g. raw material being more than 51% of the total while additives are utilized in smaller quantities). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 6, the combination teaches utilizing a process control system to carry out the method. This suggests and renders a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions of the logic being carried out in the process control system prima facie obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to have provided the instructions in the claimed form to ensure preservation of the code, as may be required, and as implied in both the instant application and the references.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz (US 2016/0009014) in view of any one of Durand et al. (US 2018/0022007), (US 5,014,545), or Emery et al. (US 4,448,736), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of either one of Schwartz et al. (US 3,999,045) or Campbell et al. (US 5,272,649).
As to claim 4, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Schmitz does not teach detecting the bubble shape or thickness as claimed. However, Schwartz et al. (thickness; col. 2, lines 27-40; col. 3, lines 7-67; col. 4, lines 3-17; Abstract) and Campbell et al. (bubble shape; Figures 2-4 and 6-8; Examples; col. 8, lines 15-20; col. 9, lines 1-10; Abstract) teach teach analogous methods wherein a property as claimed is detected and acted upon as claimed.
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 Schmitz and either one of Schwartz et al. or Campbell et al. and to have further detected either bubble shape and/or thickness as claimed in the method of Schmitz, as suggested by either one of Schwartz et al. or Campbell et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of effectively and productively producing films having desired final properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 2018/0030271) disclose an analogous film production method (Abstract; paragraphs [0035] and [0036]).
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