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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered.
The Supplement Amendment filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"at least one control module configured to control the manufacturing of the blown film" in claim 3 (e.g., see specification at p. 9, 3° paragraph; computing apparatus);
"the at least one control module is configured to control the at least one fluid stream in accordance with a desired thickness of the blown film" in claim 3 (e.g., see specification at p. 9, 3 paragraph, and at p. 11, 2nd paragraph; computing apparatus);
"a first pressure-providing device configured to subject an exterior surface of the blown film to an underpressure" in claim 3 (e.g., see specification at p. 1-3, 6-8 and 10; fig. 5; a cooling box 101 with an exhaust opening connected to a blower or pump to provide underpressure to pull the film against the rings); and
"a film sealing device configured to seal off the at least one pressure-providing device from an outer environment" in claim 6 (e.g., see specification at p. 10, 2nd paragraph; fig. 10; cooling ring acts as a seal).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “a second sealing device configured to seal off the at least one pressure-providing device from an outer environment” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter. While the original specification discloses “a first sealing device configured to act as a seal with the blown film to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone, that is upstream from the sealing device based on a direction of travel of the blown film, and a downstream pressure zone” (fig. 10, sealing device 1010 for interior of the blown film), there is no original disclosure of a second sealing device (i.e., different from the first sealing device). Note that the scope of claim 6 includes a second sealing device configured to seal off the at least one pressure-providing device from an outer environment (i.e., a second sealing device configured to seal off the first pressure-providing device (for exterior of the blown film) OR a second sealing device configured to seal off the second pressure-providing device (for interior)). The original specification does not disclose a first and second sealing device, both for interior, and does not disclose a first sealing device (for interior) and a second sealing (for exterior).
Claim 8 recites “wherein the at least one control module is configured to control the first pressure-providing device and the second pressure-providing device to maintain a pressure ratio based on the desired thickness of the blown film” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter.
Claim 9 recites “further comprising a plurality of pressure modulating components disposed along a length of travel of the blown film” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the plurality of pressure modulating components are transverse to the length of travel of the blown film” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter.
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 9-10 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.
Claims 9-10 recite “pressure modulating components” which is indefinite. What pressure is being modulated? How is such pressure modulated?
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) in view of Konermann (US 5,281,375) and Upmeier (US 4,080,143).
Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) disclose a blown film line apparatus for manufacturing a blown
film (abstract; figs. 1-3), the apparatus comprising:
at least one film extruder 4 configured to generate at least one melt strand in pipe 6 [0035];
at least one melt distribution tool 8 configured to convert the at least one melt strand into a
circulating melt layer (fig. 1; [0035]; melt is feed through pipe 6 into die means that forms it into an
annular molten flow that exits generally from the top surface of the die means);
a film outlet nozzle (downstream end of die means 8) configured to dispense the circulating
melt layer, to form the blown film 12 (fig. 1; [0035]; melt is feed through pipe 6 into die means that
forms it into an annular molten flow that exits generally from the top surface of the die means);
at least one film cooling device 24a, 24b configured to cool the blown film with at least one fluid
stream provided around the blown film in a circular manner [0037];
at least one pressure-providing device configured to convey the blown film to the at least one
film cooling device (as shown in fig. 1 and disclosed at [0036]-[0039], internal gas supply 10 provides
overpressure and/or variable exhaust device 30 together with the outer surfaces of elements 24a, 24b
provide underpressure which convey the film to cooling devices 24a, 24b);
a cooling ring 26 disposed above the at least one pressure-providing device 10, 30 and the at
least one cooling device 24a, 24b (fig. 1);
wherein each of the at least one film cooling device includes a flow divider 46, 46a configured to
divide one of the at least one fluid stream into a first partial fluid stream and a second partial fluid
stream (figs. 2-3; [0042], [0044]);
wherein the at least one fluid stream is a stream of air ([0042]-[0044], air plenum 38); and
wherein the at least one pressure-providing device comprises a first pressure-providing device
configured to subject an exterior surface of the blown film to an underpressure, and a second pressure-
providing device configured to subject an interior surface of the blown film to an overpressure (as
shown in fig. 1 and disclosed at [0036]-[0039], a first pressure-providing device (variable exhaust device
30) provides underpressure to an exterior surface of the blown film 12, and a second pressure-providing
device configured to provide an overpressure to the interior surface of the blown film (as shown in fig. 1
and disclosed at [0036]-[0039], internal gas supply conduit (duct) 10 provides overpressure which
convey the film to cooling devices 24a, 24b)).
However, Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) doesn't disclose at least one control module, OR the
second pressure-providing device including a plurality of ducts OR a first sealing device, as recited by claim 3.
Konermann (US 5,281,375) disclose a blown film line apparatus for manufacturing a blown film
(fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
at least one film cooling device 3 configured to cool the blown film with at least one fluid stream
provided around the blown film in a circular manner (figs. 1-2; col. 6, lines 27-41);
at least one control module 12 configured to control the manufacturing of the blown film,
wherein the at least one control module 12 is configured to control the at least one fluid stream in
accordance with a desired thickness of the blown film (col. 6, lines 51-68; control unit 12 with a closed
circuit controls the partitioned fluid streams around the circumference in accordance with a desired
thickness profile around the circumference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the apparatus of Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) with a control module, as disclosed by
Konermann (US 5,281,375), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable thickness
control of the blown film at different angular positions along its circumference.
Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) discloses elements 23, 24a-24c and 26 are annular cooling
elements (i.e., cooling rings) which provide cooling gas (fluid) for cooling a blown film (fig. 1; [0037]).
Konermann (US 5,281,375) discloses that it is well known to control film thickness in certain
circumferential areas (different angular positions) by controlling the heating or cooling of such certain
circumferential areas (different angular positions) (col. 1, line 5, to col. 2, line 33). Konermann (US
5,281,375) discloses controlling the cooling air in the individual circumferential areas (different angular
positions) of the film by dividing a cooling ring into individual circumferential segments (segments at
different angular positions) and independently controlling each cooling ring segment (col. 2, line 34, to
col. 5, line 47). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the
time the invention was made, to divide the cooling devices (cooling rings 24a-24b) of Cree et al. (US
2017/0203472) into independently controlled individual circumferential segments, as disclosed by
Konermann (US 5,281,375), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable
independent thickness control of corresponding individual circumferential segments of the film by
independently controlling the cooling gas flow/stream from each cooling ring segment respectively
associated with each angular position along the circumference of the film.
As to the second pressure-providing device including a plurality of ducts AND a first sealing device, Upmeier (US 4,080,143) discloses a blown film line (see figure) including a pressure-providing device 14 configured to subject an interior surface of a blown film 6’ to an overpressure via a plurality of ducts (defined between each pair of lips 26) (col. 2, line 37, to col. 3, line 2) and a first sealing device configured to act as a seal with the blown film to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone, that is upstream from the sealing device based on a direction of travel of the blown film, and a downstream pressure zone (col. 2, lines 62-66; as shown in the figure, the uppermost radial passage 22 defines a first sealing device, wherein a vacuum is formed by the air between the blown film 6’ and cooling rings 18 being withdrawn through the uppermost passage 22 by fan 31, thereby forming a seal with the blown film 6’ to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone (below the uppermost radial passage 22), that is upstream from the sealing device based on a direction of travel of the blown film 6’, and a downstream pressure zone (above the uppermost radial passage 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the second pressure-providing device with a plurality of ducts, as recited by
Upmeier (US 4,080,143), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the second pressure-providing device capable of providing an
overpressure to the interior surface of the blown film; and to further modify the blown film line apparatus with a first sealing device configured to act as a seal with the blown film to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone, that is upstream from the sealing device based on a direction of travel of the blown film, and a downstream pressure zone, as disclosed by Upmeier (US 4,080,143), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the blown film line apparatus capable of sealing.
As to claim 5, Konermann (US 5,281,375) further disclose the at least one control module 12
configured to control the manufacturing of the blown film, wherein the at least one control module 12 is
configured to control temperature and volumetric flow of the at least one fluid stream associated with a
plurality of angular positions along a circumference of the film cooling device (figs. 1-3; col. 2, line 34, to
col. 5, line 50; col. 6, line 41, to col. 7, line 25; col. 1, line 26, to col. 2, line 52, it is well known to control
film thickness by controlling cooling air streams around a circumference of the film by controlling the air
streams volumetric flowrates; col. 6, line 41, to col. 7, line 25, control module 12 for regulating the
individual flow compressors to independently control the cooling effect of cooling streams at a plurality
of angular positions along a circumference of the cooling device to regulate the film thickness; different
volumetric flows associated with the angular positions can be done by the individual flow compressors;
col. 3, lines 35-45, alternatively the cooling effect can be controlled by segmental modification of the
temperatures of the air streams).
As to claim 6, Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) disclose the blown film line apparatus further
comprising a film sealing device 24c, 28 configured to seal off the at least one pressure-providing device from an outer environment (fig. 1 and [0039], enclosure 28 seals off from the outer environment; figure
1 shows cooling device 24c at a sealing position to seal off from an outer environment; instant
disclosure discloses a sealing device can be a cooling ring at p. 10, second paragraph).
As to claim 7, Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) further disclose the blown film line apparatus,
wherein the at least one film cooling device 24c is disposed adjacent to the cooling ring 26 (fig. 1), and
wherein the at least one film cooling device can consist of a single (only one) film cooling device (Claim
1, apparatus including "at least one cooling element" (i.e., there can be only one cooling element)).
As to claims 9 and 10, Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) further disclose the blown film line apparatus further comprising a plurality of pressure modulating components (fig. 1; 23, 24a-24c, 26, 9, 10) disposed along a length of travel of the blown film, wherein the plurality of pressure modulating components are transverse to the length of travel of the blown film (fig. 1; 23, 24a-23c are traverse to the length of travel of the blown film relative to the downstream ends of 9, 10).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) in view of Konermann (US 5,281,375) and Upmeier (US 4,080,143) as applied to claims 3, 5-7 and 9-10 above, and further in view of Bose (US 4,434,129).
Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472), Konermann (US 5,281,375) and Upmeier (US 4,080,143) do not disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Bose (US 4,434,129) discloses a blown film line apparatus (fig. 1), wherein differential air pressure between the inside of a bubble of a blown film and the outside of the bubble provides the film of a desired thickness which is achieved by controlling the air pressure (col. 1, lines 24-32; thus the air pressure inside and outside of the blown film (which defines the differential air pressure) is controlled to obtain a desired thickness of the blown film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the blown film line apparatus wherein the at least one control module is configured to control the first pressure-providing device and the second pressure-providing device to maintain a pressure ratio based on the desired thickness of the blown film because such a modification would have been found in view of the teachings of Bose (US 4,434,129). As mentioned above, the combination (of prior art) discloses the at least one control module being configured to control the at least one fluid stream in accordance with a desired thickness of the blown film, the first pressure-providing device being configured to subject an exterior surface of the blown film to an underpressure (which defines the pressure outside of the blown film), and the second pressure-providing device being configured to subject an interior surface of the blown film to an overpressure (which defines the pressure inside of the blown film). In view of the teachings of Bose (US 4,434,129), it would have been obvious to control, via the at least one control module, the first pressure-providing device (to define the pressure outside of the blown film) and the second pressure-providing device (to define the pressure inside of the blown film) to maintain a pressure ratio (i.e. pressure differential) based on the desired thickness of the blown film.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,838 in view of Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) and Upmeier (US 4,080,143).
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,838 discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed except
wherein the at least one fluid stream is a stream of air; wherein the at least one pressure-providing
device comprises a first pressure-providing device configured to subject an exterior surface of the blown
film to an underpressure, and a second pressure-providing device configured to subject an interior
surface of the blown film to an overpressure via a plurality of ducts; OR a first sealing device, as recited by instant claim 4.
Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472) and Upmeier (US 4,080,143) are applied as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the apparatus of claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,838 wherein the at least one fluid
stream is a stream of air and wherein the at least one pressure-providing device comprises a first
pressure-providing device configured to subject an exterior surface of the blown film to an
underpressure, and a second pressure-providing device configured to subject an interior surface of the
blown film to an overpressure, as disclosed by Cree et al. (US 2017/0203472), because such
modifications are known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus
known to be operable in the art; to further modify the second pressure-providing device with a
plurality of ducts, as recited by Upmeier (US 4,080,143), because such a modification is
known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the second pressure-providing
device capable of providing an overpressure to the interior surface of the blown film; and to further modify the blown film line apparatus with a first sealing device configured to act as a seal with the blown film to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone, that is upstream from the sealing device based on a direction of travel of the blown film, and a downstream pressure zone, as disclosed by Upmeier (US 4,080,143), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the blown film line apparatus capable of sealing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of Cree, Konermann, or Zimmerman teach or suggest a sealing device configured to act as a seal with a blown film to subdivide an interior of the blown film into an upstream pressure zone and a downstream pressure zone.
The Examiner agrees. However, such recitations are disclosed by Upmeier (US 4,080,143), as mentioned above.
Applicant argues that Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,023,838 (the '838 patent) in view of Cree and Zimmermann. Claim 2 of the '838 patent does not disclose a blown film apparatus as recited in claim 4 at least in view of the amendment adding the first sealing device to claim 3, upon which claim 4 depends. Cree and Zimmermann do not make up for this deficiency of claim 2 of the '838 patent.
The Examiner agrees. However, such recitations are disclosed by Upmeier (US 4,080,143), as mentioned above.
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 8-10 do not add new matter and are supported by at least paragraphs [0051]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0064] and [0074] and Figs. 2-4, 6-8 and 10-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject matter of claims 8-10 are not explicitly found in the cited sections of the specification, let alone the entire original specification. Relative to claims 9-10, since there is no explicit disclosure of a plurality of pressure modulating components, particularly “modulating”, it is unclear what pressure is modulated, or how such pressure is modulated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights