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 .
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 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two side surfaces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner considers them to include a surface from which, for example, an inscribed portion is spaced from or a surface comprising “inner wall surface” (see claim 3), and end from which a distance to an inscribed portion is measured.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maki et al. (WO 2021/075282) (citing US 2022/0323971 as an English translation).
Priority: Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding Claim 1, Maki et al. (WO’282) teach a blowoff nozzle that blows out air to a film being conveyed, the blowoff nozzle comprising: first and second inscribed portions (223c, 223d) provided inside the blowoff nozzle, spaced apart in a film conveyance direction, and spaced from a virtual plane S passing through an opening portion surface 222b,222c of an opening portion 222a of the blowoff nozzle, the opening portion surface being a surface (e.g. 222b-c) from which the air is blown out, wherein the first and second inscribed portions have inclined surfaces inclined with respect to the virtual plane (Figs. 3,6; [0038,0040]), respectively, and the two inclined surfaces are inclined to approach each other toward the virtual plane, and wherein the blowoff nozzle is confiqured to blow out the air only throuqh the openinq portion 222a (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, WO’282 implicitly teaches a distance y1 [mm] from the virtual plane to the first inscribed portion satisfies y1 >= 0.5 mm, and a distance y2 [mm] from the virtual plane to the second inscribed portion satisfies y2 >= 0.5 mm, because: with reference to Fig. 3 and Example 1, including Table 1, a height h from plane S to a point on inscribed portion 223c or 223d is related to angle θ1 and distance t as h/t = tan (θ1), or h=t * tan (θ1). Substituting values in Table 1 shows that h =12 tan 70 mm = about 33 mm at opening 222a. See, also, paragraph [0039]. Also, the height decreases to 0 at the opening. Therefore, there is a first and a second inscribed portion, which is between 33 mm and 0.5 mm (including 0.5 mm) from the plane. In other words, there is a range of y1,y2>=0.5 mm.
Regarding Claim 3, as explained in the rejection of Claim 2 above, a height h’ from plane S to a point on inscribed portion 223c or 223d is related to angle θ1 and distance t as h’/t = tan (θ1), or h’=t * tan (θ1). Substituting values in Table 1 shows that h’ =12 tan 70 mm = about 33 mm at opening 222a. See, also, paragraph [0039]. Also, the height decreases to 0 at the opening. Therefore, there is a first and a second inscribed portion, which is between 33 mm and 0.5 mm (including 0.5 mm) from the plane. In other words, there is a range of y1,y2>=0.5 mm.
Referring to the figure below, h=w1 x cos θ1, h’=w1’ x cos θ1. As can be seen h > h’. Since y1,y2 = h’ >=0.5 mm over a first and second inscribed portion and h>h’ [Wingdings font/0xE0] w1 x cos θ1 >=y1,y2 over the first and second inscribed portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
478
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, in a cross-sectional view viewed from a film width direction, a center axis of a flow passage between the first inscribed portion and the second inscribed portion passes through a center of the opening portion, since the nozzle is symmetrical about the center of 222a -- 222b,223c are parallel and 222c,223d are parallel with t being a distance on each side (Fig. 3; [0038]).
Regarding Claim 5, two side surfaces of the blowoff nozzle near the virtual plane are inclined surfaces inclined to approach each other toward the virtual plane (Fig. 3; [0037]).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights