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 .
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima (US 4978289) in view of Nitta et al. (US 5622730) and Lowery (2,938,231).
With regards to claim 1, Maejima teaches a method of extrusion of a conveyable melt through a nozzle discharge slot (T-die) of a nozzle assembly (Abstract, Fig. 1, 2). Maejima teaches that the nozzle assembly comprises a first and second nozzle lip with a discharge slot arranged therebetween for setting in a controlled manner a thickness profile of a melt and includes a plurality of adjusting elements (7) arranged at the first nozzle lip (Fig. 1 and 2, col 3 In 20-46).
Maejima teaches that at least two adjusting elements are adjusted simultaneously (col 5 In 4-12). Maejima teaches that the adjustment of a respective adjusting element is executed based upon a signal from at least one thickness detector (4a) as seen in Fig. 2 which generate measurement signals based upon an optical sensor and compare the measured (input) thickness to a predetermined (desired) thickness and outputs a correction signal for individual adjusting elements (col 3 In 35-51).
However, Maejima does not discuss initial operations of the nozzle lip nor that the adjusting elements are automatically set one-time free from play as an initial setting for the subsequent regulation of the slot size.
In the same field of endeavor, Nitta teaches a method for automatically regulating the size of a nozzle discharge slot of a nozzle assembly (T-die) (abstract) in which the nozzle assembly comprises a first and second nozzle lip (22, 23) and a nozzle discharge slot (24) arranged there between as seen in Fig. 1 in which the nozzle lips are set to control a thickness profile of a conveyable melt (col 3 In 59-col 4 In 8). Nitta teaches that there are a plurality of adjusting elements arranged at the first nozzle lip (Fig. 1, bolts are arranged in a width direction of the lips, col 4 In 12-38).
Nitta teaches an initial operation of the nozzle assembly (initial adjustment, first process) prior to the start of production of a resin film and a second automatic adjustment during production (second process) according to detected film thickness compared with a previously stored target profile (col 5 In 10-55). Nitta explicitly teaches that the initial setting is to a predetermined size which necessarily requires an initial setting being dependent upon a product (film) to be produced.
Nitta teaches that the initial adjustment is such that there is no backlash (free-play) between movement of the actuator and the movement of the lip (Fig. 3) as backlash (free-play) results in the heater of the actuator not having an effect on the true lip displacement as seen in Fig. 2 of the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize the initial and then automatic adjustment method of Nitta in the process of Maejima as Maejima is silent with respect to start-up prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art, and doing so allows for application of a known technique of using an initial setting and then automatic adjustments based on feedback in a similar method yielding predictable results.
Similarly or alternatively, Lowery disclose a method for adjusting the width of an elongated gap between surfaces 47, 48 of two die blades 23, 24 mounting to two halves of the die 21, 22 of a die body portion 20, a plurality of adjusting bolts 26 connecting the blades 47, 48 to the dies 21, 22. Lowery further discloses that the adjusting bolts 26 are automatically set one-time free from play as an initial setting for subsequent regulation of the slot size by adjusting the gap between the working faces 46, 47 at approximately the desired dimension by a coarse adjustment, and additional fine adjustment is done by thermal readjustment of the adjusting bolts 26 for controlling the gap between the die blades 23, 24, see col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, so that the gap can be accurately and continuously controlled, see col. 1, lines 67-72.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maejima or a combination of Maejima and Nitta’s methods by providing a step of coarse adjustment following with fine adjustments of the die blades by automatically set one-time free from play as an initial setting for the subsequent regulation of the slot size as taught by Lowery so that the die gap can be accurately and continuously controlled.
With regards to claim 10, Maejima teaches that the adjustment is made due to a measurement of a given melt that is being extruded and thus any adjustment necessarily depends upon a type of melt as a melt must be present.
With regards to claim 14, Maejima teaches that the adjustment of a respective adjusting element is executed based upon a signal from at least one thickness detector (4a) as seen in Fig. 2 which generate measurement signals based upon an optical sensor and compare the measured (input) thickness to a predetermined (desired, nominal) thickness and outputs a correction signal for individual adjusting elements (col 3 In 35-51). As seen in Fig. 2 this includes the respective edge regions of the melt.
With regards to claim 15, Maejima teaches a control system for carrying out the method of claim 1 (Fig. 3).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima (US 4978289) in view of Nitta et al. (US 5622730) and Lowery (2,938,231) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Smith (US 4454084).
a. With regards to claims 2-7, Maejima teaches a slit die extrusion device comprising a sensor and a plurality of adjusting mechanisms to adjust the lips of the die based upon the sensed signal. Maejima teaches including a motor and means for independently adjusting individual elements based upon the sensor signals, but does not explicitly state if the motor is a stepper motor or servo motor and does not teach use of a thermoelement.
b. In the same field of endeavor, Smith teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a plurality of individual adjustment means for a slit die that are responsive to control signals and individually actuatable (Abstract, Fig. 1-4, col 3 In 54-44). Smith discusses that an advantageous drive mechanism to allow for individual control is a thermoelement that provides mechanical force to the lip by expansion or contraction.
c. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have substituted the drive mechanism of Smith for the bolts of Maejima as both relate to individually driven adjustment bolts for a slit die responsive to control signals presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so presents a simple substitution of one known drive mechanism for another yielding predictable results. Smith teaches this drive mechanism provides greater accuracy and stability (col 4 In 58-60).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maejima in view of Nitta and Lowery as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cloeren et al. (US 5888556).
a. With regards to claim 9, Maejima teaches a method of extrusion of a melt through a slit die in which the die lip is adjusted by a plurality of adjusting elements that are individually actuatable, but does not explicitly state that the plurality of adjusting elements have an equal stroke.
b. In a similar field of endeavor, Cloeren teaches that it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a stop wall (64) for the actuator elements thus setting a length of the stroke across the lip to be a maximum and thus provides for an overall equal stroke possible for each actuator (Abstract, Fig. 3, col 4 In 65-col 5 In 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to include a stop means to provide for an equal maximum stroke for the actuators as suggested by Cloeren in the device of Maejima as both relate to similar slit dies with actuators presenting a reasonable expectation of success, and doing so improves control of the stroke of the devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-10 and 14-15 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thu-Khanh T. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/Thu Khanh T. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights