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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claims 3-5 have been cancelled. Claims 6-7 are new additions. Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 1-2 and 6-7 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Newly presented claim 1 is directed towards a method for adjusting an airflow control apparatus which does not share the processing technical features required to manufacture a stretched film of original claim 5 or an airflow control apparatus of original claim 1. Moreover, the newly claimed technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2018/0311866 A1 – of record). Nishikawa discloses a method of improving the airflow separation performance, see at least [0084] and a method of evaluating airflow control performance, see at least [0110] – (construed as a method for adjusting an airflow control apparatus). The method to include the use of blowoff nozzles, N1 + N3 or N2 +N4 configured to blow out air. This includes the blowing nozzles air having a 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, 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°, see at least [0080] – ((construed as a functionality of blowing out the air in a direction tilted by more than 5 degrees toward the side into which the airflow when stopping flows, with respect to a direction perpendicular to the film passing surface from the blowoff nozzles). 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 a functionality of adjusting the blowoff nozzles). It being considered, the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See MPEP 2144 I. Thus, 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 as claimed since: the prior art presents a reasonable pathway to forming the blowoff nozzles to have an adjustment scheme to include tilting thereof more than 5 degrees in the claimed direction. Nishikawa further disclosing having a directional air blowoff scheme allows for ensuring the ability of heating, cooling, or drying the film, see at least [0080].
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 6-7 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; as the arguments are directed towards a nonelected invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
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 (571) 270-5545. 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
Prosecution Insights