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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-3 and 5-15 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a control circuit – comprising a controller – for setting…” should be “a control circuit comprising: a controller for setting…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one valve – which can preferably be actuated manually and/or by a separate controller- is connected…” should be “at least one valve, which can preferably be actuated manually and/or by a separate controller, is connected…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-15 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 discloses the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“in particular a blown film extrusion device, for producing an object having a cavity; in particular a tube, a blown film or a container”) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-3 and 5-15 are depended on claim 1 and also rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation comprising “a controller”. However, claim 1 already recites a controller. It is unclear if the claim is referring to a new controller or the same controller.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a detected actual value of a property.” It is unclear what applicant is referring to when reciting the limitation “actual value.” All values are actuals. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting it as a measured value.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the target diameter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 2 does not refer to a target diameter.
Claim 6 recites the limitation preferably which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation preferably and in particular which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation preferably and in particular which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, recites the limitation "the discharge line" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (claim 8 refers to a discharge line but claim 9 depends from claim 1 and not claim 8).
Claim 10 recites the limitation preferably which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation in particular which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the discharge line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1 does not refer to a discharge line.
Claim 12 recites the limitation preferably which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites the limitation at least one position. It is unclear what one position is referring to. Is the position in regards to the switch of the control range? Or the location of the control range? Examiner is interpreting it as the position (location) of the switch.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “that at least one valve.” However claim 1 already recites the at least one valve. It is unclear if that at least one valve is referring back to the at least valve recited in claim 1 or a new valve. Clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation preferably which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-3, 5, and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US2020/0230860 A1) in view of Joseph (US 2002/0076459 A1) and further in view of Blenke (US 2003/0092813 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider discloses an extrusion device, in particular a blown film extrusion device, for producing an object having a cavity, in particular a tube, a blown film or a container (abstract), comprising a material feed (11) that opens into an extrusion nozzle (17), and a support gas feed (42) that opens into a blow-in opening for introducing support gas into the interior of the resulting object (claim 1 and figure 3),
Schneider does not explicitly disclose wherein the support gas feed has at least one valve for regulating the support gas, and wherein the at least one valve for regulating the support gas is a proportional valve which can be regulated by a controller, wherein the proportional valve has a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range and the control circuit has a feedforward control superimposed on the controller. However, analogous art blown film extrusion device, Joseph, discloses support gas feed has at least one valve for regulating the support gas, and wherein the at least one valve for regulating the support gas is a proportional valve (123) which can be regulated by a controller (77), wherein the proportional valve has a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range [0255]. 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 the support gas feed has at least one valve for regulating the support gas, and wherein the at least one valve for regulating the support gas is a proportional valve which can be regulated by a controller, wherein the proportional valve has a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range and the control circuit has a feedforward control superimposed on the controller, as taught by Joseph into the device taught by Schneider, for the benefit of providing an improved control system to ensure bubble stability during all size change [0008].
Schneider and Joseph do not explicitly disclose the control circuit has a feedforward control superimposed on the controller. However, analogous art, Blenke, discloses utilizing a feedforward control in order to ensure if a disturbance is detected, an appropriate change is made to a manipulative variable so that an output variable is held constant [0078]. 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 feedforward control system as taught by Blenke into the device taught by the combination of Schneider and Joseph in order to ensure stability is maintained if a disturbance is detected.
Regarding claim 2, Joseph discloses characterized in that the extrusion device has a control circuit - comprising a controller - for setting the proportional valve, in which control circuit a detected actual value of a property of the object, in particular a diameter of the object, and/or an actual value of the support gas flow acts back on the control variable of the proportional valve [0084]. Further, applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 3, the claim limitation is referring to the manner of operation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II). Therefore, since the combination of Schneider, Joseph and Blenke have all the structural limitations of the claim, it is therefore capable of satisfying the manner of operation.
Regarding claim 5, Blenke, discloses utilizing a feedforward control in order to ensure it a disturbance is detected, an appropriate change is made to a manipulative variable so that an output variable is held constant [0078]. As for the configured to compensate for a non-linear gas flow characteristic of the proportional valve, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 7, Jospeh discloses using sensors for measuring diameters [0011].
Regarding claim 8, Schneider discloses a discharge line for discharging support gas branches off (59) from the support gas feed, the discharge line preferably being connected to a negative pressure generator, in particular a vacuum pump (claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, Schneider teaches the discharge line is connected to the support gas feed (42) but does not explicitly disclose the support gas feed via the proportional valve, the discharge line being decoupled from the support gas feed in a first actuating range of the proportional valve and being coupled to the support gas feed in a second actuating range of the proportional valve, and/or in that the discharge line opens into the support gas feed in a region between the proportional valve and the blow-in opening.
However, analogous art blown film extrusion device, Joseph, discloses support gas feed has at least one valve for regulating the support gas, and wherein the at least one valve for regulating the support gas is a proportional valve (123) which can be regulated by a controller (77), wherein the proportional valve has a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range [0255]. 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 the support gas feed has at least one valve for regulating the support gas, and wherein the at least one valve for regulating the support gas is a proportional valve which can be regulated by a controller, wherein the proportional valve has a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range and the control circuit has a feedforward control superimposed on the controller, as taught by Joseph into the device taught by Schneider for the benefit of providing an improved control system to ensure bubble stability during all size change [0008].
As for the discharge line opens into the support gas feed in a region between the proportional valve and the blow-in opening, MPEP 2144.04 states 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. 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 the support gas feed in a region between the proportional valve and the blow-in opening since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation the extrusion device according to characterized in that the control circuit is configured in such a way that in a region of the control range, preferably starting in the region of the middle of the control range, support gas is discharged by coupling the discharge line to the support gas feed, as a result of which the pressure in the interior of the resulting object is preferably reduced and/or maintained at a target value. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 11, Schneider discloses the discharge line is connected to a negative pressure generator, in particular a vacuum pump, the negative pressure generator preferably being actuated by the controller of the control circuit, and/or in that the support gas feed has a gas pressure source (claim 7).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation characterized in that in at least one position, preferably in a control range, of the proportional valve, both a section of the support gas feed extending between the proportional valve and the gas pressure source and the discharge line are flow- coupled to the blow-in opening, and/or in that, in at least one operating state of the extrusion device, both the gas pressure source - via the at least partially opened proportional valve - and the negative pressure generator - preferably via at least one at least partially opened valve - are flow-coupled to the blow-in opening, so that support gas can be simultaneously supplied via the support gas feed and discharged via the discharge line, the ratio between the supplied support gas and the discharged support gas preferably being controllable by means of the proportional valve and/or a valve connected in the discharge line and/or a negative pressure generator that can be regulated, applicant is referring to the manner of operation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II). Therefore, since the combination of Schneider, Joseph and Blenke have all the structural limitations of the claim, it is therefore capable of satisfying the manner of operation.
Regarding claim 13, Joseph discloses characterized in that at least one valve (47)- which can preferably be actuated manually and/or by a separate controller - is connected in the discharge line to control the support gas discharge [0074].
Regarding claim 14, Joseph discloses in that the support gas feed has, in addition to the proportional valve, at least one further valve for controlling the support gas, which valve can preferably be controlled manually and/or by a separate controller, the further valve preferably being connected between the proportional valve and the gas pressure source (Joseph discloses multiple valves 41, 47, that can support gas and be connected by a controller [0074, 0076] and a control valve 129 connected to a proportional vale 125 and connected to a pneumatic cylinder 127 [0109]).
Regarding claim 15, Schneider depicts the extrusion nozzle and the blow-in opening are integrated in an extrusion head (see figure 3).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US2020/0230860 A1) in view of Joseph (US 2002/0076459 A1) and further in view of Blenke (US 2003/0092813 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mao (US6115274 A).
Regarding claim 6, Schneider does not explicitly disclose characterized in that a ramp generator is connected upstream of the controller for target value adjustment, the target diameter and the actual diameter of the object preferably being input variables of the ramp generator. However, Mao, discloses utilizing a ramp generator since it is conventionally well known to those skilled in the art to control voltage (column 2 lines 33-35). 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 ramp generator taught by Mao into the apparatus taught by Schneider since it is conventionally well known to those skilled in the art to control the voltage.
Conclusion
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