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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the election of invention received by the office 05 December 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn as non-elected.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 December 2025.
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) 1, 3, 10, 12, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000128404 A to Nagai et al. (‘404 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘404 teaches the Stretching device for monoaxial stretching of a film web in the transport direction thereof, having a first roller (holding roller) over which the film web can be guided and which rotates at a first circumferential speed (Fig 5 item 24), a second roller (stretching roller) which is arranged downstream of the first roller, over which the film web can be guided, and which rotates at a second circumferential speed, the second circumferential speed being greater than the first circumferential speed (Fig 5 item 25), at least one pressure roller being provided, with which the film web can be pressed against one of the rollers (Fig 5 items 25 and 27), characterized in that at least one holding arrangement is provided, relative to which the pressure roller can be rotated, the pressure roller being supported on the holding arrangement via a support point extending over part, in particular over more than a quarter, of the axial length of the pressure roller or via a plurality of support points distributed over the axial length of the pressure roller and/or the circumference of the pressure roller (Fig 5 items 28 and 29).
Regarding claim 3, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one support point comprises at least one roller, on the circumferential surfaces of which the pressure roller rolls. (Fig 5 items 25, 27, 28 and 29).
Regarding claim 10, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one traction device is provided, with which a force can be applied to the pressure roller, which force is directed in the direction of the holding arrangement (paragraphs 12 and 13).
Regarding claim 12, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one traction device is provided, with which a force can be applied to the pressure roller, which force is directed in the direction of the holding arrangement, the traction device comprising at least one suction device arranged on the carrier, with which suction device the pressure roller can be acted upon by a suction force acting in the direction of the holding arrangement (paragraphs 0012 and 0013).
Regarding claim 15, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the pressure roller is provided with a coating, in particular a rubber coating, on its outer surface (paragraph 0012 and 0013)
Regarding claim 16, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the pressure roller can be driven in rotation by a drive (Fig. 5 items 26, 27, 25 and 105).
Regarding claim 17, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the pressure roller can be pressed against the roller in an angular range which is at most +/- 30 degrees around the line on the roller which is defined by the common tangential plane of both rollers (Fig. 5 items 24, 26 and 25, 27).
Regarding claim 18, ‘404 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the holding arrangement can be changed in position relative to the holding roller and/or relative to the stretching roller in their circumferential directions and/or in their radial directions (paragraphs 0012 and 0013).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘404 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0075095 to Rasmussen et al. (‘095 hereafter), of record per applicant disclosure.
Regarding claim 2, ‘404 is silent with respect to the support of the support point. In the same field of endeavor, film stretching, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that each support point is arranged on at least one carrier which extends essentially over the length of the pressure roller (paragraph 0051) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 4, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the at least one support point comprises at least one roller which is mounted on an axle via at least one bearing, the axles being fastened to the holding arrangement, in particular to a carrier of the holding arrangement, by means of an axle carrier (Fig. 2) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 5, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the axles are attached to a support of the holding device by means of the axle (Fig. 2) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 6, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one support point comprises at least one roller, each roller being fastened on a shaft, the shaft being rotatably mounted on a shaft bearing, which in turn is fastened to a carrier of the holding arrangement (Fig. 2) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 7, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least two rows of support points or at least two support points are provided, which are arranged at different angular positions in the circumferential direction of the pressure roller (Fig. 2) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 8, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that a first row and at least one second row of support points are provided, the rows extending in the longitudinal direction of the pressure roller, the support points comprising rollers, at least one roller of the first row being arranged offset relative to at least one roller of the second row in the longitudinal direction of the pressure roller (Fig. 2) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 9, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that the support point comprises at least one concavely shaped channel element in which the pressure roller lies, the inner surface of the channel element being provided with openings through which a fluid under excess pressure can be conducted into the region between the channel element and the pressure roller (Fig. 2, the gap between support rolls 2 and 3) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Regarding claim 19, ‘095 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least two holding arrangements are provided for the holding roller and/or for the stretching roller, the two holding arrangements being connected to one another via connecting elements (Fig 2. Items 2, 3, and unlabeled brackets) for the benefit of stably supporting the small diameter roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘095 for the benefit of stabling supporting the pressure roll supporting rolls.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘404 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 4116068 to Manfred Steffl (‘068 hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, ‘404 does not teach a magnetic traction component.
In the same field of endeavor, film stretching, ‘068 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one traction device is provided, with which a force can be applied to the pressure roller, which force is directed in the direction of the holding arrangement, the traction device comprising at least one magnet and at least one magnetizable element, the magnet being arranged in or on the holding arrangement and/or in or on the pressure roller and the magnetizable element being arranged in or on the pressure roller and/or in or on the holding arrangement (fig. 1 item 17) for the benefit of controlling the holding force of the roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘068 for the benefit of controlling the holding force of the pressure roller and supporting roller.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘404 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB 1,023,905 to Gernot Bruckner (‘905 hereafter).
Regarding claim 13, ‘404 does not teach a reciprocating pressure roll. In the same field of endeavor, film stretching, ‘905 teaches the apparatus characterized in that at least one shifting drive is provided, with which the pressure roller can be moved back and forth in its axial direction (Fig 1 item 10a) so as to maintain contact with the edges of the film. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 with those of ‘905 for the benefit of maintaining contact with the film edges.
Claim(s) 14 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘404 in view of ‘095 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP H08305185 to Hideki Mori (‘185 hereafter).
Regarding claim 14, ‘404 in view of ‘095 does not teach a roll cleaning structure. In the related art of film fixing, ‘185 teaches an apparatus characterized in that at least one cleaning element is arranged on the carrier, with which cleaning element the outer surface of the pressure roller and/or at least one support point and/or at least one roller can be cleaned (Fig 1 item 101) for the benefit of cleaning the roller. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘404 in view of ‘095 with those of ‘185 for the benefit of cleaning the roll.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743