DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/04/2024 and 07/10/2026 is being considered in the examination of this application.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
a. Claim 2: the “suction nozzle includes an opening portion… a slip portion… and a decompression chamber” and the “decompression chamber that is a space having a larger cross-sectional area perpendicular to a suction direction than the slit portion”;
b. Claim 4: the “a spacer member between the removing member and the nozzle member, wherein the nozzle member, the spacer member, and a side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction form the opening portion, the slit portion, and the decompression chamber”.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities (line numbers indicated below reflect the line in which limitations are recited):
a. Claim 2, lines 7-8: the limitation “a decompression chamber that is a space having a larger cross-sectional area perpendicular to a suction direction than the slit portion” is grammatically incomprehensible and should be replaced with “a decompression chamber that is a space having a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of the split portion” or the like for the purpose of grammatical comprehension and with consideration of the objection to the drawings, above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 5-7 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.
8. Claim 5, lines 3-4, recites the limitation “wherein an opening width of the opening portion in the film width direction is 4% to 150% with respect to a film width of the coated film to become a target for removing” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to exactly how an opening width of the width of the opening portion is claimed as a function of a film width of the coated film that is not a part of the claimed invention. Further stated, the claimed invention is drawn to a coating film removing mechanism (i.e., a mechanism for removing a coating film), the coating film as well as the coated film are merely the intended use of the claim invention, and there is no at least positive connection between the removing mechanism and the coating film/coated film being claimed in at least claims 1 and 5 in order for the coating film/coated fill to be required by the claimed invention. Furthermore, it is unclear as to whether the coated film is a target for removing or is merely optionally a target for removing due to the term following the term “to become”. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
9. Claim 6, lines 2-3, recites the limitation “wherein an angle formed by the coated film and the side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction is 30o and 120o” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to exactly how the relative arrangement between is claimed as function of the coated film that is not a part of the claimed invention. Further stated, the claimed invention is drawn to a coating film removing mechanism (i.e., a mechanism for removing a coating film), the coating film as well as the coated film are merely the intended use of the claim invention, and there is no at least positive connection between the removing mechanism and the coating film/coated film being claimed in at least claims 1 and 6 in order for the coating film/coated fill to be required by the claimed invention. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
10. Claim 7 recites the limitation “the coated film” in line, the limitation “the base film” in line 2, the limitation “the coating film” as well as “the coated film” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
12. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nierlich et al. (US 4281431 A), hereinafter “Nierlich”.
13. Regarding Claim 1, Nierlich discloses a coating film removing mechanism which is a mechanism for removing a coating film from a coated film that includes the coating film on at least one surface of a base film and is conveyed (Abstract and col. 3, ll. 39-56, col. 5, ll. 36-47 and col. 8, ll. 25-29; a scrapping element for removing thermoplastic material from at least an upper side 2 of a plastic sheet 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 7-9), the mechanism comprising:
a removing member that includes a tip portion extending in a film width direction, and is for removing the coating film by bringing the tip portion into contact with the coated film (col. 8, ll. 25-46; blade support 55 and blade 57 utilized for scrapping of the surface of the sheet 1, such as thermoplastic material, blade 57 is a flat-sided blade of uniform cross section and has a thickness, a tip portion of blade 27 in contact with upper side 2 of sheet 1 in removing the thermoplastic material as seen in FIG. 7, furthermore the tip portion of blade 57 must include a length extending about the width of sheet 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2, 7 and 9); and
a nozzle member (58) disposed on an upstream side of the removing member (55/57) in a film conveyance direction (FIG. 7),
wherein the removing member and the nozzle member constitute a suction nozzle that sucks the coating film removed by the tip portion (col. 8, ll. 47-55; rib 58 adjacent to blade support 55 disposed on an upstream side of blade 57, forms a slot 59 with support 55 that is in fluid communication with interior 60 of cylinder 54, vacuuming is achieved through one of the ends of cylinder 54 by means of a conduit 111 connected to a vacuum store, accordingly slot 59 is structurally capable of coating film removed by the tip portion of blade 57 as seen in FIGS. 7-8) and
a side surface of the removing member on a downstream side in the film conveyance direction and a side surface of the nozzle member on an upstream side in the film conveyance direction are inclined so as to approach each other toward the tip portion (side surfaces of each of blade 57 and rib 58 are clearly inclined and converging towards the tip portion of blade 57, the side surface of blade 57 disposed on the downstream side and the side surface of the rib 58 disposed on the upstream side as indicated by the arrow indicating the conveyance direction as seen in FIG. 7).
14. Regarding Claim 2, Nierlich discloses the coating film removing mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the suction nozzle includes:
an opening portion (59) that extends in the film width direction and is opened in a vicinity of the tip portion (an opening formed via support 55 and rib 88 in communication with slot 59, the opening extends in a width direction with respect to the sheet 1 and is in proximity to tip portion of blade 57 as seen in FIG. 7 and annotated FIG. 7 below);
a slit portion (59) that extends in the film width direction and is a flow path communicating with the opening portion (col. 8, ll. 47-52; slot 59 extending a width direction and is a flow path communicating with the opening and interior 60 of cylinder 54 as seen in FIG. 7 and annotated FIG. 7 below); and
a decompression chamber (60) that is a space having a larger cross-sectional area perpendicular to a suction direction than the slit portion (col. 8, ll. 47-52; cylinder 54 including an interior 60 of cylinder 54, and vacuuming is achieved through one of the ends of the cylinder 54 by means of a conduit 111 connected to a vacuum source, accordingly removed material is sucked through the opening, through the slot 59 and into interior 60 of the cylinder 54, the area of the interior 60 being clearly greater than the area of slot 59, and the slot 59 and/or suction direction clearly perpendicular to interior 60 as seen in FIG. 7).
15. Regarding Claim 3, Nierlich discloses the coating film removing mechanism according to claim 2, wherein
the suction nozzle forms the opening portion, the slit portion (59), and the decompression chamber (60) with the nozzle member (58) and a side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction (a side surface of support 55 which together with a side surface of rib 58 defines slot 59 as seen in FIG. 7).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
216
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierlich et al. (US 4281431 A).
18. Regarding Claim 5, Nierlich discloses the coating film removing mechanism according to claim 2,
Wherein an opening width of the opening portion wherein an opening width of the opening portion in the film width direction is a percent with respect to a film width of the coated film to become a target for removing (col. 8, ll. 25-32; hollow cylinder 54 extends the entire width of the sheet at each of its extremities, therefore with consideration of the blade support 55 and rib 58 forming the slot 59 having the opening adjacent to tip portion of blade 57, an opening width of the opening must be at least a percent of a width of sheet 1 that is less than 100% of the width of the sheet as seen in FIGS. 7 and 9).
Nierlich is silent regarding an opening width of the opening portion wherein an opening width of the opening portion in the film width direction is specifically 4% to 150% with respect to a film width of the coated film to become a target for removing in the embodiment as shown in FIG. 7.
Nierlich discloses a coating film removing mechanism which is a mechanism for removing a coating film from a coated film that includes the coating film on at least one surface of a base film and is conveyed (Abstract and col. 3, ll. 39-56, col. 5, ll. 36-47 and col. 6, ll. 20-27; fixed scrapper assembly including blade 12 for removing thermoplastic material from at least an upper side 2 of a plastic sheet 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2) wherein an opening width of the opening portion in the film width direction is 4% to 150% with respect to a film width of the coated film to become a target (col. 6, ll. 22-27; the slot 13 including a length (i.e., width) that is equal to a length of the blade 12, the length of the blade extending the entire width of the sheet 1, therefore the length of the slot 13 is within 4% to 150% the width of the sheet 1, see MPEP 2131.03(I))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nierlich as taught by Nierlich such that wherein an opening width of the opening portion in the film width direction is 4% to 150% with respect to a film width of the coated film to become a target in order to enable to the suction nozzle to suck the entire width of the sheet upon the coating film being removed by the removing member, thereby reducing the possibility of removed coating film being conveyed away from the removing mechanism uncollected.
19. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierlich et al. (US 4281431 A), in view of Komehana et al. (JP 2001179741 A), hereinafter “Komehana” [cited on the IDS filed on 12/04/2024, see attached translational document for any reference made to the text].
20. Regarding Claim 6, Nierlich discloses the coating film removing mechanism according to claim 3, wherein an angle formed by the coated film and the side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction (an angle formed between layer 2 of sheet 1, comprising thermoplastic material, and the side surface of blade 57 on the upstream side in the conveyance direction as seen in FIG. 7 and annotated FIG. 7 below).
Nierlich is silent regarding wherein an angle formed by the coated film and the side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction is specifically 30o and 120o.
Komehana discloses a coating film removing mechanism (Komehana Abstract and paras. [0009]-[0010]; peeling of a coated material 3 from sheet 2 via blade 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2) an angle formed by the coated film and the side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction is specifically 30o and 120o (para. [0004] and [0008]; sheet 2 is bent at an angle 8 of 90o, therefore with consideration of the blade 1 including a side surface on the upstream side (i.e., right side surface of blade 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2) a tip portion of .5 mm or less as well a the blade being centered with the center of the bent angle 8, the angled formed between the sheet 2 and the side surface on the upstream side must be greater than 30 and less than 45 degrees, the angle formed is between 30 and 120 degrees, see MPEP 2131.03(I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention Nierlich as taught by Komehana such that an angle formed by the coated film and the side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction is specifically 30o and 120o in order to improve the effectiveness of the removing member in removing coating film from the surface of the base film during conveyance.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle)][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
216
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7
21. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nierlich et al. (US 4281431 A), in view of Horitani (CN 117483333 A), hereinafter “Horitani” [see attached translational document for any reference made to the text].
22. Regarding Claim 7, Nierlich discloses a coating film removing equipment (Abstract and FIGS. 1-2 and 7) comprising:
the coating film removing mechanism according to claim 1 (the coating film removing mechanism as discussed above, regarding claim 1), the coating film removing mechanism for removing the coating film from the coated film to be conveyed (col. 3, ll. 39-56, col. 5, ll. 36-47 and col. 8, ll. 25-46; a scrapping element for removing thermoplastic material from at least an upper side 2 of a plastic sheet 1, comprising blade support 55 and blade 57 utilized for scrapping of the surface of the sheet 1, such as thermoplastic material, blade 57 is a flat-sided blade of uniform cross section and has a thickness, a tip portion of blade 27 in contact with upper side 2 of sheet 1 in removing the thermoplastic material as seen in FIG. 7, furthermore the tip portion of blade 57 must include a length extending about the width of sheet 1 as seen in FIGS. 1-2, 7 and 9).
Nierlich is silent regarding an unwinding device for unwinding the coated film wound in a roll;
a winding device for winding the base film with the coating film removed; and the coating film removing mechanism being placed between the unwinding device and the winding device and being for removing the coating film from the coated film to be conveyed.
Horitani discloses a coating film removing equipment (Horitani Abstract and p. 9; attachment
removing device 2 as seen in FIGS. 7 and 9) comprising:
an unwinding device (120/121) for unwinding the coated film wound in a roll (p. 7 and 12; feeding roller 121 of feeding mechanism 120 to feed the sheet member 100 until the sheet member 100 is wound by the winding roller 131 of the winding mechanism 130);
a winding device (130/131) for winding the base film with the coating film removed (p. 7 and 12; sheet member 100 is wound by winding roller 131 of winding mechanism 130); and
the coating film removing mechanism being placed between the unwinding device and the winding device and being for removing the coating film from the coated film to be conveyed (p. 4, 6 and 11; pressing blade member 20, for removing attachment 101 which includes a green coat, placed between feeding mechanism 120 and winding mechanism 130, configured to remove attachment 101 from sheet member 100 that is being conveyed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention Nierlich as taught by Horitani such that the coating film removing mechanism being placed between the unwinding device and the winding device and being for removing the coating film from the coated film to be conveyed in order to facilitate operations for removing of coating film by conveying the coating film to the removing mechanism and winding of the base film after removing of the coating film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as overcoming drawing objections and 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combined limitations of claims 1-2 and 4. In particular, a spacer member between the removing member and the nozzle member, wherein the nozzle member, the spacer member, and a side surface of the removing member on the upstream side in the film conveyance direction form the opening portion, the slit portion, and the decompression chamber.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Baliol (US 3264673 A) discloses a removing mechanism comprising a removing member that includes a tip portion, a nozzle member disposed on a side of the removing member, wherein the removing member and the nozzle constitute a suction nozzle.
Horitani (CN 117505389 A) and Hirotani (CN 117483332 A) individually disclose a coating film removing equipment comprising: an unwinding device for unwinding the coated film wound in a roll; a winding device for winding the base film with the coating film removed; and a coating film removing being placed between the unwinding device and the winding device and being for removing the coating film from the coated film to be conveyed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm EST.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights