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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 08/21/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 Interpretation
With regards to the preamble: The recitation “that is provided adjacent to an upstream side of an entrance of a tenter oven in a film conveyance direction and/or to a downstream side of an exit of the tenter oven in the film conveyance direction, the tenter oven including the entrance into which a film is conveyed and the exit from which the film is conveyed” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02565).
With regards to the limitation: “when an airflow flowing from the upstream side toward the downstream side in the film conveyance direction or from the downstream side toward the upstream side in the film conveyance direction inside the airflow control apparatus while exhaust of air from the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms and blowoff of air from the blowoff nozzle are stopped is an airflow when stopping”. The examiner added emphasis to rationalize the examined interpretation. Taken in its entirety the limitation reads as language descriptive of machine direction (MD) flow.
Support for this reading is provided in applicant’s written description. Where it is recited, “such phenomena are phenomena in which air flows along a conveyance direction of the film, and such a flow of air is referred to as a machine direction (MD) flow. The MD flow is caused by an airflow that accompanies the film when the film is conveyed”, see page 2 lines 19-23.
That is, as the film is conveyed through the airflow control apparatus, MD flow is present (an airflow flowing), in the direction of film conveyance (from the upstream side toward the downstream side in the film conveyance direction or from the downstream side toward the upstream side in the film conveyance direction inside the airflow control apparatus), including when the exhaust mechanisms and blowoff nozzles are not operating (while exhaust of air from the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms and blowoff of air from the blowoff nozzle are stopped) such that an airflow remains when the air flow control is off (an airflow when stopping). Thus, the aforementioned limitation serves to set an environment where there is a persistent airflow from at least MD flow.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa et al. (US 2018/0311866 A1 – of record as WO 2017115654), in the alternative, in view of Abe et al. (US 2020/0108547 A1 – of record as WO 2018180).
Regarding claim 1, Nishikawa discloses an airflow control apparatus and method for manufacturing stretched film – (corresponds to an airflow control apparatus). The apparatus 1 to include inside of the dashed line, see FIG. 1 – (corresponds to inside the airflow control apparatus) at least one pair of blowoff nozzles, N1 + N3 or N2 +N4 configured to blow out air to the film FR being conveyed, the one pair of blowoff nozzles N1 + N3 or N2 +N4 facing each other with a film passing surface 2 sandwiched between the one pair of blowoff nozzles.
And at least one pair of upstream-side exhaust mechanisms 8 a, 8 c configured to exhaust the air inside the airflow control apparatus, the one pair of upstream-side exhaust mechanisms being provided on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction with respect to the one pair of blowoff nozzles to face each other with the film passing surface sandwiched between the one pair of upstream-side exhaust mechanisms, see FIG. 1, [0065] – [0066].
And at least one pair of downstream-side exhaust mechanisms 8 b, 8 d configured to exhaust the air inside the airflow control apparatus, the one pair of downstream-side exhaust mechanisms being provided on the downstream side in the film conveyance direction with respect to the one pair of blowoff nozzles to face each other with the film passing surface sandwiched between the one pair of downstream-side exhaust mechanisms, see FIG. 1, [0075] – [0076].
While Nishikawa the occurrence of MD flow, see [0005] being substantially the same as explained in the claim interpretation section. And further discloses each of an amount of air exhausted from the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms 16.0 [m3/min] and an amount of air exhausted from the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms 16.0 [m3/min] is greater than zero, see Table 2 Exhaust mechanism; it does not explicitly disclose “the amount of air exhausted from the exhaust mechanisms positioned on a side into which the airflow when stopping flows, of the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms, is greater than the amount of air exhausted from the other exhaust mechanisms”.
However, Nishikawa discloses the use of dampers for adjusting the amount of air blowing from the nozzles N1 – N4, see [0056] – [0057] and adjusting the exhaust air volume of the exhaust plenums (i.e. 8 a – 8 d), see [0058] – [0059]. To further include adjusting the exhaust mechanism 8 a – 8 d individually, see [0097]. Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Nishikawa’s airflow control apparatus function as claimed since: The claims are directed towards an apparatus. Recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114 (II). Moreover, one of ordinary skill as part of routine experimentation would envision such a concept as Nishikawa clearly contemplates suppressing the MD flow, see at least [0080], [0083], [0084]. It being considered that having the exhaust mechanisms disposed on the MD flow side have a higher volume throughput and designed temperature setpoint than those disposed on the other side would predictably offset the temperature influence of the MD flow.
In the alternative:
Abe discloses an air flow controller and manufacturing method of stretched film. The controller is configured to adjust a discharge flow rate of the air discharge mechanism on an upstream side in an air flow is larger than a discharge flow rate of the air discharge mechanism on a downstream side in the air flow, the air flow being a flow that an air flows in the air flow controller when the film passes the air flow controller in a state where discharge of air by all of the air discharge mechanisms is stopped, see [0029].
And further where, an air flow passing through the air flow controller in the film running direction blows from the tenter oven to the external space while air discharge from all of the air discharge mechanisms is stopped, the discharge flow rates of the air discharge mechanisms 5 b and 5 d on the upstream side in the air flow are preferably set larger than those of the air discharge mechanisms 5 a and 5 c on the downstream side. This being beneficial for reducing the air blowing from the tenter oven. This makes it possible to reduce a loss of energy used for heating the air blowing from the tenter oven, see [0055].
Likewise, the air flow passing through the air flow controller in the film running direction blows in the tenter oven 10 from the external space 14 while air discharge from all of the air discharge mechanisms is stopped, the discharge flow rates of the air discharge mechanisms 5 a and 5 c on the upstream side in the air flow are preferably set larger than those of the air discharge mechanisms 5 b and 5 d on the downstream side. This makes it possible to reduce the air blowing in the tenter oven from the outside, thereby making it possible to reduce temperature unevenness of the film in the tenter oven, see [0056].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishikawa’s apparatus to have a functionality of the amount of air exhausted from the exhaust mechanisms positioned on a side into which the airflow when stopping flows, of the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms, is greater than the amount of air exhausted from the other exhaust mechanisms as taught by Abe to provide the apparatus with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishikawa does not explicitly disclose the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms are adjusted such that a total amount of air exhausted from the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms is greater than an amount blown out from the blowoff nozzle.
However, modified Nishikawa discloses the use of dampers for adjusting the amount of air blowing from the nozzles N1 – N4, see Nishikawa [0056] – [0057] and adjusting the exhaust air volume of the exhaust plenums (i.e. 8 a – 8 d), see Nishikawa [0058] – [0059]. To further include adjusting the exhaust mechanism 8 a – 8 d individually, see Nishikawa [0097]. Therefore, it is considered that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Nishikawa’s airflow control apparatus function as claimed since: The claims are directed towards an apparatus. Recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114 (II). Moreover, one of ordinary skill as part of routine experimentation would envision such a concept as Nishikawa clearly contemplates suppressing the MD flow, see at least [0080], [0083], [0084]. It being considered that having the exhaust mechanisms have a higher volume throughput than the amount of the blow nozzles would predictably offset the influence of the MD flow by removing the MD flow through the exhaust mechanisms.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Nishikawa discloses the blowing nozzles air blowing angle formed by the air blowing direction on the downstream side of the film running direction and an angle on the upstream side of the film running direction - (construed as that is in a direction toward the side into which the airflow when stopping flows), which is the direction that the air blowing opening blows the air, and the film passing surface be perpendicular. The fact that the air blowing angle is perpendicular means that the air blowing angle that is formed by the air blowing direction and the film passing surface is within a range of 90±5° - (construed as tilted since angles less than or more than 90° are tilted relative to a 90° perpendicular arrangement). And where the air blowing openings have specified shapes to elicit directionality in the air curtain, see at least Nishikawa [0081] – (construed as the blowoff nozzles include a mechanism configured to adjust a blowoff direction of the air).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishikawa discloses a method for manufacturing a stretched film, see Nishikawa Title, the method to include passing a film through each of a tenter oven and an airflow control apparatus; the airflow control apparatus being provided adjacent to an upstream side of an entrance of the tenter oven in a film conveyance direction and/or to a downstream side of an exit of the tenter oven in the film conveyance direction; at the airflow control apparatus, exhausting air in the airflow control apparatus with the upstream-side exhaust mechanisms and the downstream-side exhaust mechanisms while blowing air toward a running film from the blowoff nozzles; and at the tenter oven, heating and stretching the running film, see Nishikawa [0033].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749