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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on July 13th, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Secor does not disclose each and every feature of independent claims 1, 16 and 23 as amended in the amendments filed on July 13th, 2026, which incorporates limitations from cancelled claims 4, 8 and 9. This is not found persuasive because applicant received an election requirement for the claims filed on January 3rd, 2024, wherein the shared technical feature of the three groups of inventions was demonstrated to not be a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Secor. Applicant’s arguments concerning the traversal are moot as they are based on newly added limitations added to the claims after the applicant received the restriction requirement. Furthermore, as shown in the prior art rejections below, Secor still reads on the amended limitations and therefore the special technical feature of the claims does not make a contribution over the prior art. Accordingly, claims 16-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 13th, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A in the reply filed on July 13th, 2026, is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, it is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in an apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims. In other words, the process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
Claim 13 recites "an air mover configured to actively move air…" which includes the structural generic placeholder of "an air mover" associated with the functional limitation of "actively move air". The specification defines corresponding structure for the claimed generic placeholder of "an air mover" to include air or coolant mover can include a fan 128.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 6 and 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a recess configured to receive the insulator therein” in line 2. Prior to this limitation, claim 1, lines 13-14, recites “the insulator disposed between…in the first recess and the second recess”. It is unclear if “a recess” is referring to the first recess, the second recess, a combination of the first recess and the second recess or if this is a new limitation. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be treated as a new limitation as per specification [0098].
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the coupler comprises a first portion coupled to the actuator” in line 2. It is unclear if “a first portion” is referring to “a coupler including a first portion” from claim 1, line 8, as the recitation in claim 1 states the first portion is attached to the engagement member, whereas the recitation in claim 7 states the first portion is coupled to the actuator. Clarification is required. As the first portion of the coupler in claim 1, line 8, is spaced apart from the second portion and the coupler is disposed between the engagement member and the actuator, the limitation of claim 7 will be read as "the coupler comprises the first portion coupled to the engagement member". This interpretation is supported by specification [0098].
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the coupler comprises… a second portion” in line 2. It is unclear if “a second portion” is referring to “a coupler including… a second portion” from claim 1, line 9, as the recitation in claim 1 states the second portion is attached to the actuator, whereas the recitation in claim 7 states the first portion is coupled to the engagement member. Clarification is required. As the second portion of the coupler in claim 1, line 9, is spaced apart from the first portion and the coupler is disposed between the engagement member and the actuator, the limitation of claim 7 will be read as "the coupler comprises… the second portion coupled to the actuator". This interpretation is supported by specification [0098].
Please note that per this interpretation of claim 7, claim 7 fails to further limit claim 1. Furthermore, the specification should be amended in [0011, 0033] to make consistent the description of the first and second portions of the coupler based on the description in specification [0098] and Figures 2-4C.
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, 5-7, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Secor et al. (WO 2012170713 A1; hereafter Secor), as evidenced by Stepper Motor (NPL 1).
Regarding claim 1, Secor discloses a lip adjustment assembly (Fig. 3; [0039]) for adjusting thickness of an extrudate ([0037]; providing desired cross-web profile of an extruded product), the lip adjustment assembly comprising:
an engagement member (Fig. 4; [0048]; die actuator linkage 252) operably connected to a movable lip (Fig. 3; [0039]; flexible die lip 32) of an extrusion die (Fig. 3; [0039]; slot die 30), the engagement member being movable in a first direction and in a second direction opposite the first direction (Fig. 3-4; [0048, 0115]; actuator assembly allows the die lip 32 to move back and forth);
an actuator (Fig. 4; [0048]; linear actuator 220) configured to selectively move the engagement member in the first direction and in the second direction (Fig. 3-4; [0048, 0115]);
and a coupler (Fig. 4; [0047]; zero-backlash coupler 240) including a first portion (Marked Fig. 4; first portion attached to die actuator linkage 252) fixedly attached to the engagement member and defining a first recess (Marked Fig. 4; [0049]; first portion is a recess in the space between bottom half 242 and top half 244 of zero backlash coupler 240) and a second portion (Marked Fig. 4; second portion attached to linear actuator 220) fixedly attached to the actuator and defining a second recess (Marked Fig. 4; [0049]; second portion is a recess in the space between bottom half 242 and top half 244 of zero backlash coupler 240), the first portion being spaced from the second portion such that the coupler is disposed between the engagement member and the actuator (Marked Fig. 4), the coupler further including an insulator (Fig. 4; [0050]; insulative disc 248) configured to impede conduction of heat from the engagement member to the actuator ([0051]; insulative disc 248 significantly limits metal-to-metal contact to help protect from damaging heat), the insulator disposed between the first portion and the second portion in the first recess and the second recess (Marked Fig. 4),
wherein when the engagement member is moved in the first direction, the movable lip is moved toward a second lip of the extrusion die (Fig. 3; [0040]; die lip 34), and when the engagement member is moved in the second direction, the movable lip is moved away from the second lip (Fig. 3-4; [0101-0103]).
PNG
media_image1.png
773
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a stepper motor (Fig. 4; [0048]; motor 210 may be a stepper motor) having a rotational component (Fig. 4; [0048]; stepper motors inherently have inside magnets that rotate, see Stepper Motor Pg. 2) and a linear component (Fig. 4; [0048]; stepper motors inherently have an shaft, see Stepper Motor Pg. 1), wherein movement of the rotational component in a first rotational direction causes movement of the linear component in a first linear direction (Fig. 4; [0045, 0048]; stepper motors, operably to adjust a local position of the flexible die lip 32, inherently function by rotating the magnets to drive the shaft forward or backward depending on the direction of current, see Stepper Motor Pg. 2), and movement of the rotational component in a second rotational direction opposite the first rotational direction causes movement of the linear component in a second linear direction opposite the first linear direction (Fig. 4; [0045, 0048]; stepper motors, operably to adjust a local position of the flexible die lip 32, inherently function by rotating the magnets to drive the shaft forward or backward depending on the direction of current, see Stepper Motor Pg. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 2, wherein the linear component is configured to be moved by a predetermined linear distance that is proportional to a predetermined rotational distance of the rotational component (Fig. 4; [0048]; stepper motors inherently rotate at well-defined/pre-defined steps or angles to drive the shaft a corresponding amount, see Stepper Motor Pg. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, wherein the coupler has a first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4; [0050-0051]; thermal conductivity of zero-backlash coupler 240 comprising metal), the insulator has a second thermal conductivity (Fig. 4; [0050-0051]; thermal conductivity of ceramic insulative disc 248), and the second thermal conductivity is lower than the first thermal conductivity (Fig. 4; [0050-0051]; thermal conductivity of ceramic is lower than metal in to thermally isolate the actuator assembly from the slot die).
Regarding claim 6, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, wherein the coupler comprises a recess (Marked Fig. 4; [0050]; insulative disc 248 is housed in a recess defined in the space between bottom half 242 and top half 244 of zero backlash coupler 240) configured to receive the insulator therein.
Regarding claim 7, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, wherein the coupler comprises the first portion coupled to the engagement member (Marked Fig. 4; first portion attached to die actuator linkage 252) and the second portion coupled to the actuator (Marked Fig. 4; second portion attached to linear actuator 220), the first portion being spaced from the second portion (Marked Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, further comprising a housing ([0166]; die housing) configured to at least partially enclose the actuator therein ([0166]; the actuator assemblies are installed in place of the actuation mechanism in the die housing).
Regarding claim 13, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, further comprising an air mover ([0051]; active thermal control via convective air flow) configured to actively move air toward or away from the actuator ([0051]; active thermal control via convective air flow to cool actuator assembly).
Regarding claim 14, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, further comprising a controller ([0049]; controller 300) configured to control operation of the actuator ([0049]; Controller 300 provides instructions to motor 210 to drive output shaft 222 of actuator 220 to a preselected position).
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.
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.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor et al. (WO 2012170713 A1; hereafter Secor).
Regarding claim 10, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, wherein the actuator, the coupler, and the engagement member that are connected to each other constitute a set of components (Fig. 4; assembly of linear actuator 220, zero-backlash coupler 240 and die actuator linkage 252).
Secor does not explicitly disclose the lip adjustment assembly comprises a plurality of sets of components, with each set of components having at least one actuator, at least one coupler, and at least one engagement member.
However, Secor discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the set of components, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI(B). One would have been motivated to duplicate the set of components for the purpose of allowing for the manufacture of multiple extruded products simultaneously.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor et al. (WO 2012170713 A1; hereafter Secor), in view of Sanze et al. (US 5626888 A1; hereafter Sanze).
Regarding claim 12, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 11.
Secor does not explicitly disclose the housing defining an air vent extending therethrough, the air vent being configured to permit movement of air into and out of the housing.
However, in the analogous art Sanze teaches a lip adjustment assembly (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 2nd and 3rd ¶; die lip adjustment for flat-sheet die) comprising a housing (Fig. 1; Col. 6, Ln. 3rd ; cooling device 53) configured to at least partially enclose an actuator (Fig. 1; Col. 4, 4th ¶; actuators 13) therein, wherein the housing defines an air vent extending therethrough (Fig. 1; Col. 6, 3rd ¶; conduit ducts for cooling air), the air vent being configured to permit movement of air into and out of the housing (Fig. 1; Col. 6, 3rd ¶; cooling air moves through conduit ducts to cool actuators 13).
Secor and Sanze are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of lip adjustment assemblies for extrusion dies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lip adjustment assembly of Secor with the teachings of Sanze to provide the housing defining an air vent extending therethrough, the air vent being configured to permit movement of air into and out of the housing. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow the actuators to be adjusted at a high/fast speed (Sanze Col. 3, 2nd ¶).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secor et al. (WO 2012170713 A1; hereafter Secor), in view of Maeder et al. (US 20130334730 A1; hereafter Maeder).
Regarding claim 15, Secor discloses the lip adjustment assembly of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of actuators (Fig. 1B, 3; [0013, 0015]; a plurality of actuators) arranged in a linear array (Fig. 1B).
Secor does not explicitly disclose each actuator of the plurality of actuators is spaced from at least an adjacent one of the plurality of actuators by a distance of between about 1 inch and about 4 inches measured between centerlines of each actuator of the plurality of actuators and the at least adjacent one of the plurality of actuators.
However, in the analogous art Maeder teaches a lip adjustment assembly (Fig. 1; [0001]; adjustable slot die) comprising a plurality of actuators (Fig. 1d; [0057, 0071]; driven screws 4) arranged in a linear array ([0057]; screws 4 extend along the nozzle gap over the entire width of the slot die), wherein each actuator of the plurality of actuators is spaced from at least an adjacent one of the plurality of actuators by a distance of between about 1 inch and about 4 inches measured between centerlines of each actuator of the plurality of actuators and the at least adjacent one of the plurality of actuators ([0057]; screws 4 extend along the nozzle gap over the entire width of the slot die and typically have a spacing of approximately 25 mm).
Secor and Maeder are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of lip adjustment assemblies for extrusion dies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lip adjustment assembly of Secor with the teachings of Maeder to provide each actuator of the plurality of actuators is spaced from at least an adjacent one of the plurality of actuators by a distance of between about 1 inch and about 4 inches measured between centerlines of each actuator of the plurality of actuators and the at least adjacent one of the plurality of actuators. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would allow for a greater variety of cross-sectional shapes for the extruded product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights