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 amendment filed 03/10/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, “wherein ablation” should read -- wherein the ablation--.
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 2 and 4-10 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 2 recites the limitation "the surface" in ln 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean a surface of the first and/or second roller.
Claim 2 recites a surface of the roller in ln 15. It is not clear which roller the claim is referencing. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean the surface of the first and/or second roller.
Claims 4-8 recite the roller. It is not clear which roller the claim is referencing. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim has been interpreted to mean the first and/or second roller.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneshima et al. (JP2018069639 with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Kaneshima.
Regarding claim 2, Kaneshima teaches:
A stretching device for stretching a plastic film in its transport direction (Fig 2: stretching device 5), comprising:
a first roller over which the plastic film is guidable and which is drivable with a first drive and rotatable at a first circumferential speed (Fig 2-3: roll 8; low speed electric motor 11), and
a second roller over which the plastic film is guidable and which is drivable with a second drive and rotatable at a second circumferential speed (Fig 2-3: roll 9; high speed electric motor 12),
wherein the second circumferential speed is greater than the first circumferential speed ([0024]),
wherein the second roller is arranged downstream of the first roller in the transport path of the plastic film, so that the plastic film is stretchable in the free area between the first and the second roller (Fig 2; [0024]),
wherein the first and/or the second roller are designed to subject the plastic film to an at least partially radially inwardly directed force ([0021-0022]),
wherein openings are provided in the surface for applying the inwardly directed force (Fig 3: suction holes 8b, 9b; [0021-0022]),
wherein the openings are at least partially subjectable to a negative pressure from a negative pressure source ([0021-0022]), and
wherein a surface of the roller is surface-treated and/or coated ([0021-0022]).
Kaneshima does not explicitly recite wherein a surface of the roller is surface-treated and/or coated such that the plastic film is movable relative to the roller surface without damage being brought about on the plastic film.
However, Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating treatment for the surface of the rolls 8 and 9 ([0021-0022]). Applicant disclosure teaches chrome plating serves to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement.
Regarding claim 10, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima further teaches wherein at least one device for increasing the radially inwardly directed force is configured such that the plastic film is movable relative to the roller surface without damage being brought about on the plastic film ([0021-0022]; see discussion of hard chromium plating treatment regarding claim 2 above).
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.
Claim(s) 4-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneshima as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mittmeyer et al. (US5232141) hereinafter Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 4, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima does not teach wherein the roller is surface-treated.
In the same field of endeavor regarding rollers, Mittmeyer teaches treatment of a roller surface by lathe-turning, grinding and polishing for the motivation of providing a smooth finish (col 3, ln 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rollers as taught by Kaneshima with the surface treatment as taught by Mittmeyer in order to provide a smooth finish.
Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer does not teach using a pressing method.
However this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Mittmeyer teaches forming a smooth finish on the roller. Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating, which is disclosed by applicant specification to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Applicant specification discloses that the claimed surface treatment as an alternative or in addition to providing a coating to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Since the prior art apparatus comprises a roller that is surface treated and coated for the same motivation of providing a smooth surface, then the difference in process to arrive at the final product cannot be considered to be significant as to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the above product-by-process step is made obvious by Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 5, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima does not teach wherein the roller is surface-treated.
In the same field of endeavor regarding rollers, Mittmeyer teaches treatment of a roller surface by lathe-turning, grinding and polishing for the motivation of providing a smooth finish (col 3, ln 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rollers as taught by Kaneshima with the surface treatment as taught by Mittmeyer in order to provide a smooth finish.
Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer does not teach using mechanical brushing or blasting.
However this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Mittmeyer teaches forming a smooth finish on the roller. Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating, which is disclosed by applicant specification to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Applicant specification discloses that the claimed surface treatment as an alternative or in addition to providing a coating to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Since the prior art apparatus comprises a roller that is surface treated and coated for the same motivation of providing a smooth surface, then the difference in process to arrive at the final product cannot be considered to be significant as to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the above product-by-process step is made obvious by Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 6, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima does not teach wherein the roller is surface-treated.
In the same field of endeavor regarding rollers, Mittmeyer teaches treatment of a roller surface by lathe-turning, grinding and polishing for the motivation of providing a smooth finish (col 3, ln 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rollers as taught by Kaneshima with the surface treatment as taught by Mittmeyer in order to provide a smooth finish.
Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer does not teach using electrochemical or electrolytic polishing.
However this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Mittmeyer teaches forming a smooth finish on the roller. Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating, which is disclosed by applicant specification to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Applicant specification discloses that the claimed surface treatment as an alternative or in addition to providing a coating to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Since the prior art apparatus comprises a roller that is surface treated and coated for the same motivation of providing a smooth surface, then the difference in process to arrive at the final product cannot be considered to be significant as to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the above product-by-process step is made obvious by Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 7, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima does not teach wherein the roller is surface-treated.
In the same field of endeavor regarding rollers, Mittmeyer teaches treatment of a roller surface by lathe-turning, grinding and polishing for the motivation of providing a smooth finish (col 3, ln 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rollers as taught by Kaneshima with the surface treatment as taught by Mittmeyer in order to provide a smooth finish.
Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer does not teach using ablation.
However this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Mittmeyer teaches forming a smooth finish on the roller. Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating, which is disclosed by applicant specification to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Applicant specification discloses that the claimed surface treatment as an alternative or in addition to providing a coating to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Since the prior art apparatus comprises a roller that is surface treated and coated for the same motivation of providing a smooth surface, then the difference in process to arrive at the final product cannot be considered to be significant as to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the above product-by-process step is made obvious by Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 8, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer does not teach using ablation using laser pulses.
However this limitation is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." See MPEP 2113.
Mittmeyer teaches forming a smooth finish on the roller. Kaneshima teaches a hard chromium plating, which is disclosed by applicant specification to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Applicant specification discloses that the claimed surface treatment as an alternative or in addition to providing a coating to provide a very smooth surface of the roller, wherein the film web is not damaged even during movement. Since the prior art apparatus comprises a roller that is surface treated and coated for the same motivation of providing a smooth surface, then the difference in process to arrive at the final product cannot be considered to be significant as to patentably distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Therefore the above product-by-process step is made obvious by Kaneshima in view of Mittmeyer.
Regarding claim 9, Kaneshima teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Kaneshima does not teach wherein the roller is surface-treated.
In the same field of endeavor regarding rollers, Mittmeyer teaches treatment of a roller surface by lathe-turning, grinding and polishing for the motivation of providing a smooth finish (col 3, ln 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rollers as taught by Kaneshima with the surface treatment as taught by Mittmeyer in order to provide a smooth finish.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 031/10/2026 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.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights