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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species A3, B1, C2, D2, E2, and F2 (i.e., claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30, and 32-33 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 1, 19, 27 and 29 are generic at least to Groups A-D because they do not recite single species of material, flow type, blade type, or blade connection type).
This is not found persuasive because the incorrect identification of generic claims does not invalidate the restriction requirement among the Groups and Species. While Examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive about the generic claims, Applicant’s argument does not prove that the restriction between Groups I and II or the Species is improper. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30, and 32-33 is/are examined herein.
With respect to the rejoinder request of withdrawn claims directed to unelected species, Examiner will rejoin withdrawn claims directed to unelected species if/when they depend from or otherwise require all the limitation of an allowable generic claim and meet all the rejoinder requirements set forth in the CTRS dated 04/24/2026.
With respect to the rejoinder request of withdrawn method claims, Examiner will rejoin withdrawn method claims if/when they include all the limitations of an allowable apparatus claim and meet all the rejoinder requirements set forth in the CTRS dated 04/24/2026 and MPEP §821.04.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original non-provisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63537234 fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The disclosure of these provisional applications does not seem to have adequate support for the subject matter of withdrawn claims 15-17, the limitation “the first end and second end of the flow obstacle each rigidly coupled to a mounting plate” of independent claims 27 and 29. As a result, claims 15-17 and 27-32 will not be provided benefit to this provisional application and will have an effective filling date of 02/12/2024.
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30, and 32-33 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 27-28 be found allowable, claims 29-30 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30, and 32-33 is/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 1, 19, and 27 recite the limitation “a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable so that the flow obstacle contacts the interior surface of the curved enclosure” which is indefinite. The claimed language merely states a function/capability obtained by the apparatus without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the claim. The structure of the apparatus that allows the position of the flow obstacle to be adjustable is not clear. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claims 1, 19, and 27 recite the limitations “the flow obstacle contacts the interior surface of the curved enclosure” and “a gap is defined between the interior surface of the curved enclosure and the flow obstacle” which make the scope indefinite. The second limitation contradicts the first limitation. Is the flow obstacle contacting or spaced apart from the surface of the curved enclosure? The claims have been examined below as best understood.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18 and 33 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 27 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the heating system” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the heating system” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the heat transfer system--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the internal flow obstacle” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the internal flow obstacle” in the claim(s). The limitation has been examined below as if it read --the flow obstacle--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “an extensional flow is generated in the material” which is indefinite. The claimed language states a result obtained by the apparatus without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the claim. The structure of the apparatus that allows the generation of an extensional flow in the material is not clear. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claim 29 recites the limitation “a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable” which is indefinite. The claimed language merely states a function/capability obtained by the apparatus without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the claim. The structure of the apparatus that allows the position of the flow obstacle to be adjustable is not clear. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
Claim(s) 30 and 32 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 29 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claims 28 and 30 recite the limitation “the curved enclosure rotates” which is indefinite. The claimed language merely states a function/capability obtained by the apparatus without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claimed language what structure is encompassed by the claim. The structure of the apparatus that allows the rotation of the curved enclosure is not clear. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g).
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, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30 and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maihart (US 3768943).
Regarding claim 1, Maihart discloses an apparatus (Abstract) for producing oriented polymer films (the taught apparatus is capable of producing oriented polymeric layers/films via the usage of hardenable plastic material such as duroplastic and the rotation of the tubular mold while smoothing the material with the cylindrical blade are expected to create extensional/shear flow that orients polymer molecules: Abstract, C1, L49-56; C3, L9-13; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of producing oriented polymer films: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115) comprising:
a curved enclosure (a tubular cylindrical mold 1) having an exterior surface (external wall surface of 1) and an interior surface (inner wall surface of 1) defining an interior volume (inner volume of 1: Fig. 3), wherein an opening (annotated opening) extends through the curved enclosure and into the interior volume (See annotated Fig. 3), the curved enclosure configured to rotate (1 is configured to rotate: Abstract, C5, L9, Fig. 3); and
a flow obstacle (rolling device 55 shown and described as a coating cylindrical blade: C6, L61-63; C5, L20-22) having a first end and a second end (See annotated Fig. 3), the second end of the flow obstacle extending through the opening and within the interior volume of the curved enclosure (the second end of 55 is capable of extending through the opening of 1 and within the interior volume of 1 as it is longitudinally movable at any position within the interior volume of mold 1: C5, L12-30; See annotated Fig. 3) and the first end of the flow obstacle rigidly coupled to a mounting plate (1st end of 55 is shown/described as being rigidly coupled to a shown 1st mounting plate because 55 is described as being capable of rolling/rotating: C6, L61-63; C5, L20-22, See annotated Fig. 3),
wherein a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable (a position of 55 is adjustable within the interior volume of mold 1 via 47 and 54: C5, L12-30; See annotated Fig. 3) so that the flow obstacle contacts the interior surface of the curved enclosure (since 55 is capable of being moved relative to the inner wall surface of 1 via 54 and molding/smoothing material with any desired wall thickness, 55 is capable of contacting the inner wall surface of 1: C1, L49-56; C5, L12-30; See annotated Fig. 3; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of contacting the inner wall surface of 1: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115);
wherein a gap is defined between the interior surface of the curved enclosure and the flow obstacle, where a material is disposed (Abstract, C1, L49-56, C5, L20-22, C6, L61-63, See annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
549
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-3, Maihart further implicitly discloses wherein the curved enclosure is flushed with inert gas, and wherein the inert gas is nitrogen (1 is capable of being flushed with an inert gas such as nitrogen via the opening of 1 and/or a blowing nozzle 51: C5, L16, See annotated Fig. 3; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of being flushed with nitrogen: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 6, Maihart further implicitly discloses wherein the material is a phase changing system, a reacting system, or a combination thereof that produces a polymer (the material comprises duroplastics which are known hardenable thermosetting prepolymers that chemically react and change phase from liquid to solid during their hardening/polymerization to produce polymers: C1, L49-56; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of using a reacting system as the material: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Maihart further implicitly discloses wherein a continuous rotation of the curved enclosure generates a periodic extensional flow within the material (1 is configured for continuous rotation and the continuous rotation of 1 while the material is between inner surface of 1 and outer surface of 55 is expected to be capable of generating a periodic extensional flow within the material via the fundamentals of flow dynamics: C1, L49-56; C7, L2-6; C8, L3-8, Fig. 3; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of generating periodic extensional flow within the material: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 8, Maihart further discloses wherein the curved enclosure is a cylindrical enclosure (1 is a tubular cylindrical mold: Abstract, C3, L44-45, Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Maihart further discloses wherein the internal flow obstacle comprises a blade support arm connected to a blade, wherein the blade is a cylindrical blade (the internal rolling device comprises cantilever beam 54 supporting and connected to 55, wherein 55 is shown and described as a coating cylindrical blade: C5, L12-30; C6, L61-63; See annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Maihart further implicitly discloses wherein the blade is rotatably coupled to the blade support arm (55 is rotatably coupled to 54 because 55 is configured for rolling/rotating: C5, L12-30; C6, L61-63; See annotated Fig. 3) and the blade rotates in response to a rotation of the curved enclosure (55 rolls/rotates in response to the rotation of 1 as no other rotating drive source is disclosed/suggested in Maihart for driving rolling/rotating of 55: C5, L12-30; C6, L61-63; See annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Maihart further implicitly discloses/shows wherein the mounting plate includes a translation stage (the shown/annotated mounting plates include translational stage 47 and/or annotated translational stage capable of translating the mounting plates longitudinally within the interior of mold 1: C5, L12-30, See annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 19, 27, and 29, Maihart discloses an apparatus (Abstract) for producing oriented polymer films (the taught apparatus is capable of producing oriented polymeric layers/films via the usage of hardenable plastic material such as duroplastic and the rotation of the tubular mold while smoothing the material with the cylindrical blade are expected to create extensional/shear flow that orients polymer molecules: Abstract, C1, L49-56; C3, L9-13; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of producing oriented polymer films: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115), comprising:
a curved enclosure (a tubular cylindrical mold 1) having surface (annotated internal surface of 1: (See annotated Fig. 3), and
a flow obstacle (rolling device 55 shown and described as a coating cylindrical/roller blade: C6, L61-63; C5, L20-22, See annotated Fig. 3) having a first end and a second end (See annotated Fig. 3), the second end of the flow obstacle extending over the surface of the curved enclosure (the second end of 55 extending over and being parallel to the annotated internal surface of 1: See annotated Fig. 3), and
the first end and second end of the flow obstacle each rigidly coupled to a mounting plate (the annotated 1st end and 2nd end of 55 are shown/described as each being rigidly coupled to the shown/annotated 1st and 2nd mounting plates respectively because 55 is described as being capable of rolling/rotating: C6, L61-63; C5, L20-22, See annotated Fig. 3),
wherein a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable (a position of 55 is adjustable within the interior volume of mold 1 via 47 and 54: C5, L12-30; See annotated Fig. 3) so that the flow obstacle contacts the surface of the curved enclosure (since 55 is capable of being moved relative to the inner wall surface of 1 via 54 and molding/smoothing material with any desired wall thickness, 55 is capable of contacting the inner wall surface of 1: C1, L49-56; C5, L12-30; See annotated Fig. 3; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of contacting the inner wall surface of 1: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115),
wherein a gap is defined between the surface of the curved enclosure and the flow obstacle, where a material is disposed (Abstract, C1, L49-56, C5, L20-22, C6, L61-63, See annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
549
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Maihart discloses further discloses wherein the curved enclosure rotates (1 is configured to rotate: Abstract, C5, L9, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 32, Maihart further implicitly discloses/shows wherein the mounting plate includes a translation stage (the shown/annotated mounting plates include translational stage 47 and/or annotated translational stage capable of translating the mounting plates longitudinally within the interior of mold 1: C5, L12-30, See annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, Maihart further implicitly discloses the continuous rotation of the curved enclosure causes a portion of the material to be wiped (smoothed) onto the interior surface of the curved enclosure and reintroduced into the gap with subsequent rotation of the curved enclosure (C5, L12-30; C6, L61-63; See annotated Fig. 3), continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional flow (the continuous rotation of 1 while the material is between inner surface of 1 and outer surface of 55 is expected to be capable of continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional flow via the fundamentals of flow dynamics; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional flow: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
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) 1-3, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 18-19, 27-30, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 5622668) in view of Bolomey (US 3222439).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses an apparatus (40) for producing oriented polymer films (Abstract, Figs. 3a-b), comprising:
a curved enclosure (outer cylinder 44) having an exterior surface (external surface of 44) and an interior surface (internal surface of 44) defining an interior volume (internal volume of 44: See Figs. 3a-b), wherein an opening extends through the curved enclosure and into the interior volume (implicit features of 44 because 44 is described/shown as being hollow and needs at least one opening at one of its ends to be capable of receiving and nesting 42 in the described/shown eccentric arrangement: C2, L1-10; C6, L8-31, Figs. 3a-b), the curved enclosure configured to rotate (44 is configured to rotate: C6, L8-20, Figs. 3a); and
a flow obstacle (inner cylinder 42) having a first end and a second end (implicit features of 42 because 42 is described/shown as an inner eccentric cylinder), the second end of the flow obstacle extending through the opening and within the interior volume of the curved enclosure (implicit arrangement 42 within 44 in view of their described/shown eccentric arrangement: C2, L1-10, C6, L8-20, Figs. 3a-b) …, wherein a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable so that the flow obstacle contacts the interior surface of the curved enclosure (C2, L30-33; C6, L8-31, Fig. 3a);
wherein a gap is defined between the interior surface of the curved enclosure and the flow obstacle, where a material is disposed (C6, L8-31, Fig. 3b).
PNG
media_image3.png
373
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thomas is silent as to the mounting of the flow obstacle. Thus, Thomas fails to discloses that the first end of the flow obstacle rigidly coupled to a mounting plate.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing oriented plastic/polymer layers, Bolomey discloses a flow obstacle (inner cylinder 11) having a first end and a second end (annotated Fig. 1), the second end of the flow obstacle extending through an opening and within an interior volume of a curved enclosure (outer cylinder 12) and the first end of the flow obstacle rigidly coupled to a mounting plate for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure (C4, L12-26).
PNG
media_image4.png
295
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Since Thomas teaches to allow rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure via known/desirable driving mechanisms (C2, L10-29; C6, L8-20, Fig. 3a), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Thomas in view of Bolomey by rigidly coupling the first end of the flow obstacle to a mounting plate for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure as suggested by Bolomey. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claims 2-3, Thomas further discloses/suggests wherein the curved enclosure is flushed with inert gas, and wherein the inert gas is nitrogen (the cylinder surface of 12 is capable of being flushed with a gas such as nitrogen gas: C3, L16-23; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of being flushed with nitrogen: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 6, Thomas further discloses wherein the material is a phase changing system, a reacting system, or a combination thereof that produces a polymer (the material comprises a block copolymer solution that chemically reacts/cross-link and change phase from liquid to solid during its polymerization/cross-linking to produce copolymers: C1, L14-47; C4, L3-9; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of using a reacting system as the material: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Thomas further discloses wherein a continuous rotation of the curved enclosure generates a periodic extensional flow within the material (44 is configured for continuous rotation in rotational cycles which is expected to generate a periodic elongational also known as extensional flow: C7, L1-31; C7, L56-63, and/or applying laws of fluid dynamics to the taught apparatus; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is capable of generating periodic extensional flow within the material: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Regarding claim 8, Thomas further discloses wherein the curved enclosure is a cylindrical enclosure (44 is a hollow cylinder that defines a cylindrical enclosure/interior: C2, L1-10; C6, L8-31, Figs. 3a-b).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Thomas further discloses wherein the internal flow obstacle comprises a cylindrical blade (C2, L1-10; C6, L8-31, Figs. 3a-b) while Bolomey further discloses/suggests wherein the internal flow obstacle comprises a blade support arm connected to a blade (bearing 20 shown as an arm supporting and connected to 11: Fig. 1), wherein the blade is a cylindrical blade (11 is shown and described as a coating cylindrical blade) for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure (C4, L12-26, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Thomas in view of Bolomey by a connecting the cylindrical blade to a blade support arm for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure as suggested by Bolomey. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 13, Thomas further discloses providing a driving mechanism capable of achieving co-rotation such that the blade rotates (42) in response to a rotation of the curved enclosure (44: C2, L10-29; C6, L8-17) while Bolomey further implicitly discloses/suggests wherein the blade is rotatably coupled to the blade support arm and the blade rotates in response to a rotation of the curved enclosure (11 capable of rotating in response to a rotation of 12 via 16 and 20 being a bearing and being coupled to 16: C4, L12-26, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Thomas in view of Bolomey by rigidly coupling the blade to the blade support arm and configuring the blade to rotate in response to a rotation of the curved enclosure for the benefit(s) of allowing co-rotation as suggested by Bolomey. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 18, Bolomey further implicitly discloses/suggests wherein the mounting plate includes a translation stage (the shown 1st mounting plate includes a translation stage as 11 needs to be raised/translated: C5, L31-34, annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 19, 27, and 29, Thomas discloses an apparatus (40) for producing oriented polymer films (Abstract, Figs. 3a-b), comprising:
a curved enclosure (outer hollow cylinder 44) having surface (internal surface of 44: C2, L1-10; C6, L8-31, Figs. 3a-b), and
a flow obstacle (inner cylinder 42) having a first end and a second end (implicit features of 42 because 42 is described/shown as an inner eccentric cylinder), the second end of the flow obstacle extending over the surface of the curved enclosure (implicit arrangement of 42 within 44 in view of their described/shown eccentric and parallel arrangement of 42 within 44: C2, L1-10, C6, L8-20, Figs. 3a-b) …,
wherein a position of the flow obstacle is adjustable so that the flow obstacle contacts the surface of the curved enclosure (C2, L30-33; C6, L8-31, Fig. 3a);
wherein a gap is defined between the surface of the curved enclosure and the flow obstacle, where a material is disposed (C6, L8-31, Fig. 3b).
PNG
media_image3.png
373
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thomas is silent as to the mounting of the flow obstacle. Thus, Thomas fails to discloses that the first end and the second end of the flow obstacle are each rigidly coupled to a mounting plate.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing oriented plastic/polymer layers, Bolomey discloses a flow obstacle (inner cylinder 11) having a first end and a second end (annotated Fig. 1), the second end of the flow obstacle extending over a surface a curved enclosure (2nd end of 11 extending over an internal surface of outer cylinder 12) and the first end and second end of the flow obstacle are each rigidly coupled to a mounting plate (1st end and 2nd end of 11 each rigidly coupled to the respective shown mounting plates: See annotated Fig. 1) for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure (C4, L12-26).
PNG
media_image5.png
295
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Since Thomas teaches to allow rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure via known/desirable driving mechanisms (C2, L10-29; C6, L8-20, Fig. 3a), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Thomas in view of Bolomey by rigidly coupling the first end and the second end of the flow obstacle to a respective mounting plate for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure as suggested by Bolomey. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Thomas further discloses wherein the curved enclosure rotates (44 is configured to rotate: C6, L8-18, Figs. 3a).
Regarding claim 32, Bolomey further implicitly discloses/suggests wherein the mounting plate includes a translation stage (the shown 1st mounting plate includes a translation stage as 11 needs to be raised/translated: C5, L31-34, annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 33, Thomas further discloses the continuous rotation of the curved enclosure (44) causes a portion of the material (48) to be wiped (coated) onto the interior surface of the curved enclosure and reintroduced into the gap with subsequent rotation of the curved enclosure (C7, L1-31; C7, L56-63, Figs. 3a-b, and/or applying laws of fluid dynamics to the taught apparatus), continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional flow (the continuous rotation of 44 while the material is between inner surface of 44 and outer surface of 42 is expected to be capable of continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional/elongational flow via the fundamentals of flow dynamics: C7, L1-31; C7, L56-63, Figs. 3a-b, and/or applying laws of fluid dynamics to the taught apparatus; furthermore, since the taught apparatus is structurally equivalent to the claimed apparatus, the taught apparatus is expected to be capable of continuously exposing the material to the periodic extensional flow: See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 5622668) in view of Bolomey (US 3222439) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hong (US 20190336936).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas further discloses wherein the curved enclosure comprises a heat transfer system, the heat transfer system including … a conductor (surface of 44 can be made of aluminum which is known heat conductor: C3, L1-4; wherein a wall of aluminum is the disclosed conductor: [0072] of Applicant’s published application) and a layer for heating (heater for heating the surface of 44: C3, L32-35; C8, L11-12) while Bolomey further discloses to include a heat transfer system including a heating and/or cooling layer (41) in the curved enclosure (14) in order to provide temperature control (C4, L26-32, Fig. 1).
However, the combination fails to disclose that the heat transfer system includes an insulator.
In an analogous art, Couette-Taylor reactors, Hong discloses the technique of providing
a heat transfer system to a curved enclosure/reactor, the heat transfer system including an insulator (thermal insulator not shown), a conductor (wall of 31 made of stainless steel), and a layer (36) for heating for the benefit(s) of improving temperature control and/or minimizing heat loss of the curved enclosure/reactor (Abstract, P0025-0026, P0034, Fig. 2). Hong further discloses the technique of flushing nitrogen to the curved enclosure/reactor for the benefit(s) of minimizing occurrence of fire and/or failure of synthesis/reaction (P0034, 0049). Hong further discloses/shows the technique of rigidly coupling a first end and a second end of a flow obstacle to a respective mounting plate for the benefit(s) of allowing rotation of the flow obstacle relative to the curved enclosure/reactor (P0025, Fig. 2).
Official notice is taken that the technique of including/incorporating an insulator to heat transfer systems such as cylindrical heat exchanging systems and cylindrical cooling/heating jackets is well-known and desirable in the art yielding the predictable benefit(s) of improving temperature control and/or minimizing heat loss of the heat transfer system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of the combination in view of Hong and/or ordinary knowledge in the art by including/incorporating an insulator to the heat transfer system for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of improving temperature control and/or minimizing heat loss of the curved enclosure/reactor as suggested by Hong and/or predicted by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure.
Leung (US 4619988) discloses a relevant Couette apparatus for producing oriented polymer filaments via extension flow field (Abstract, claim 1, C3, L43-52).
Martin (WO 2022187858) discloses a relevant apparatus for producing oriented polymer filaments (abstract, Figs. 1-2B and accompanying text). Martin further discloses the technique of rigidly coupling a first end of a flow obstacle (102) to a mounting plate (upper mounting plate comprising motor 100).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights