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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 recites the limitation at least one further valve for regulate the flow of the support gas should be at least one further valve for regulating the flow of the support gas. 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.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation a reference variable. However, it is unclear what or how the reference variable is connected to the controller. Is it part of the proportional valve? Clarification is required.
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, 2, 7, 14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102825753A, herein referred to as ‘753.
Regarding claim 1, ‘753 teaches a blown film extrusion device, for producing an object having a cavity, the extrusion device comprising:
A material feed (4) that opens into an extrusion nozzle (see figure 1);
A support gas feed (1) that opens into a blow-in opening for introducing support gas into the cavity of the resulting object, wherein the support gas feed has
at least one proportional valve (7) for regulating the support gas, the proportional valve having a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range; and
a control circuit (10) configured to regulate the proportional valve by feedforward control that compensates for the non-linear gas flow characteristic of the proportional valve (pg. 3 2nd to last paragraph).
As for the limitation, the proportional valve having a non-linear gas flow characteristic in at least one operating range configured to regulate 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. Further, given the limited number of options for the valve: non-linear or linear. MPEP 2144.04 states obvious to try given limited number of options is a prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a non-linear gas flow in the proportional valve given the limited number of options.
Regarding claim 2, ‘753 discloses wherein the control circuit is further configured to regulate the proportional valve based on a detected value of a property of the object, and/or a detected value of a flow of the support gas (pg.3 2nd to last paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, ‘753 discloses a sensor arranged in the support gas feed for detecting the detected value of the flow of the support gas, and wherein the control circuit is in communication with the sensor (pg. 2 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 14, ‘753 discloses characterized in that the support gas feed has, in addition to the proportional valve (7), at least one further valve (11) for regulate the flow of the support gas introduced into the cavity of the object via the blow-in opening (pg. 3 paragraph 9-10).
Regarding claim 21, ‘753 discloses wherein the detected value of the flow of the support gas includes gas pressure (12) of the support gas (pg. 3 paragraph 8-9).
Regarding claim 22, ‘753 discloses a sensor (12) for detected value of the property of the object, and wherein the control circuit (10) is in communication with the sensor (pg. 3 paragraphs 8-9).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102825753A, herein referred to as ‘753 as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Yang (US2015/0189209 A1).
Regarding claim 3, ‘753 does not explicitly disclose characterized in that a reference variable of the control circuit is a target diameter of the object and/or a target diameter of the object adjusted by a ramp generator. However, analogous art, Yang, discloses using ramp generators (170) to convert an input signal to and output signal in order to generate an image component (claim 7). As for the reference variable of the control circuit is a target diameter of the object, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a target diameter or a target diameter of the object in order to optimize the printed product and further figure 8 depicts the object that can be adjusted [0088]. Further, 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 ‘753 and Blenke have all the structural limitations of the claim, it is therefore capable of satisfying the manner of operation.
Regarding claim 6, ‘753 discloses a controller for setting the proportional valve (pg. 2 2nd to last paragraph) but does not explicitly disclose a ramp generator is connected upstream of the controller and configured to receive a target diameter for the object and a detected diameter of the object, and to adjust a target value based on the target diameter and the detected diameter. However, analogous art, Blenke, discloses using ramp generators (170) to connected to a control unit (180) in order adjust the image of the object [0088]. Further, 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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102825753A, herein referred to as ‘753 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schneider (US2020/0230860 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 25, ‘753 discloses a discharge line (6 breaks up into different direction) branching off from the support gas feed, the discharge line connected to a negative pressure generator (1). Further if Applicant does not agree with ‘753 interpretation, analogous prior art, Schneider, discloses the use of 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). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention o have incorporated a negative pressure generator (vacuum) for the benefit of the regulating extraction of process gas to an optimum extent for stabilizing the hose forming and guide, as well as supplying constant, regulated gas quantities to the gas analyzers, particle counters, etc [0010].
Regarding claim 9, ‘753 discloses the discharge line (2) is connected to the support gas feed via the proportional valve (7).
Regarding claim 11, ‘753 teaches wherein the negative pressure generator is controlled by the control circuit (pg.3 paragraph 6-7). Further, Schneider also teaches wherein the negative pressure generator is controlled by the control circuit (claim 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention o have incorporated a negative pressure generator (vacuum) for the benefit of the regulating extraction of process gas to an optimum extent for stabilizing the hose forming and guide, as well as supplying constant, regulated gas quantities to the gas analyzers, particle counters, etc [0010].
Regarding claim 12, ‘753 teaches the support gas feed has a gas pressure source (1); and one or more of the control circuit (10) and/or the proportional valve (7) and/or the discharge line are configured so that in at least one operating state of the extrusion device both the gas pressure source and the negative pressure generator are flow coupled to the blow in opening so that the support gas is simultaneously supplied to the blow in opening via the support gas feed and discharged via the discharge line (pg. 2 paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 13, ‘753 teaches a valve in the discharge line, the valve (11) being controlled by a controller (10) to control discharge of the support gas via the discharge line (pg.3 paragraph 9-10).
Regarding claim 15, Schneider depicts the extrusion nozzle and the blow-in opening are integrated in an extrusion head (see figure 3). Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214 The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral.
Regarding claim 24, ‘753 teaches wherein the discharge line opens into the support gas feed in a region between he proportional valve and the blow-in opening (see figure 1).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102825753A, herein referred to as ‘753 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Joseph (US 2002/0076459 A1).
Regarding claim 23, ‘753 does not explicitly disclose wherein the property of the object includes a diameter of the object, 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. However, analogous art blown film extrusion device, Jospeh discloses using sensors for measuring diameters [0011]. 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 sensors for diameters since KSR states A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102825753A, herein referred to as ‘753, and further in view of Schneider (US2020/0230860 A1), and in view of Joseph (US 2002/0076459 A1).
Regarding claim 26, ‘753 teaches wherein the control circuit (10) and the proportional valve (7) are configured to decouple the discharge line from the support gas feed. ‘753 does not explicitly disclose for first actuating range of the proportional valve and to couple the discharge line to support gas feed in a second actuating range of the proportional valve. Joseph discloses actuating a first range and a second range [0022, 0087, 0119, 0127,0138, 0264]. 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 first actuating range of the proportional valve and to couple the discharge line to support gas feed in a second actuating range of the proportional valve for the benefit of improving control system and quality control of the final product [0138] as taught by Joseph into the method taught by ‘753.
Regarding claim 10, ‘753 discloses characterized in that the control circuit (10) and the proportional valve (7) are configured to cause the discharge line to be coupled to the support gas feed starting in a middle of a control range of the proportional valve (pg.2 paragraph 5-6).
Regarding claim 27, ‘753 discloses supplying gas with a gas pressure source (1), controller circuit (10), via discharge line (see figure 1) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to control a ratio between the support gas supplied from the gas pressure source and support gas discharged via the discharge line by means of controlling the proportional valve and/or valve connected in the discharge line and/or the negative pressure generator. Analogous art, Joseph, discloses controlling a ratio of the system [0297] in order to determine when to slow down the reaction. 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 ratio between the support gas suppled form the gas pressure source and support gas discharged in order to determine when to slow down the reaction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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 N. TAUFIQ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights