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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “in that in that” should read –in that--.
In claim 11, “adhering to the calibration” should read –adhering to the calibration device--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the limitations following the phrase “in particular” are interpreted to be optional.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schippers et al. (US4029452 of record) hereinafter Schippers.
Regarding claim 1, Schippers teaches:
Extrusion device (Fig 1) for a plastic profile with an extruder (Fig 1: extruder 3), an extrusion nozzle arranged at the exit of the extruder for forming the plastic profile (Fig 1: nozzle 10) and, downstream of the extrusion nozzle, a calibration device through which the plastic profile can be guided (Fig 1: draw plate 6; col 4, ln 28-32),
at least one device for dispensing a fluid (Fig 1: draw plate 5; col 5, ln 4-24), through a jet nozzle (Fig 2-3: slot 24), is arranged on the calibration device (Fig 1; col 4, ln 32-37).
Schippers does not explicitly recite the at least one device for dispensing a fluid is a cleaning device for dispensing a cleaning agent.
However, Schippers teaches that the fluid is water, which is a well-known cleaning agent. Since water is a cleaning agent, then a device that dispenses water can be considered a cleaning device.
Furthermore, the cleaning agent is material worked upon by the apparatus, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Schipper does not teach a flat jet nozzle. However, this limitation is optional and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 2, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches the at least one cleaning device is integrated in the calibration device, in particular in a flow channel of the calibration device, is screwed to the calibration device and/or is magnetically attached to the calibration device (Fig 1; col 4, ln 28-37).
Regarding claim 3, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches the cleaning agent can be applied as a thin film to a surface of the plastic profile by means of the at least one cleaning device, in particular by means of slits or pockets in the calibration device, so that the cleaning agent can be transported along by the plastic profile by drag flow (col 5, ln 4-39).
Regarding claim 4, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches the cleaning agent of the cleaning device can be dispensed through a porous surface (Fig 2-3: slot 24; col 5, ln 4-39).
Schipper does not teach a porous sinter insert in the calibration device. However, this limitation is optional and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 5, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches the cleaning agent can be dispensed in a targeted manner onto the entire profile circumference (Fig 1: tube 2; col 5, ln 4-39).
Regarding claim 6, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches a control device for controlling the delivery of the cleaning agent (col 7, ln 11-23).
Regarding claim 7, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Schippers further teaches the control device is arranged and provided for automatically regulating the at least one cleaning device in terms of time and quantity (col 7, ln 11-53).
Regarding claim 8, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches the cleaning agent can be applied at intervals (col 7, ln 11-53).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marven (US4663099).
Regarding claim 9, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers further teaches jet nozzle is arranged in a gap between the extrusion nozzle and the calibration device (Fig 1).
Schippers does not teach a flat jet nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor regarding extrusion, Marven teaches using an annular cooling system comprising flat jet nozzles for forming an uninterrupted wall of cooling water (col 3, ln 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the annular slot as taught by Schipper with the flat jet nozzles as taught by Marven and the results would have been predictable since both references teach forming an annular flow of cooling water.
Regarding claim 10, Schippers in view of Marven teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Schippers further teaches an outlet of the jet nozzle directs a spray jet towards the calibration device (Fig 1-5; col 5, ln 4-39).
Schippers in view of Marven does not teach an outlet of the flat jet nozzle is bevelled.
Since the prior art and claimed invention teach the same function, the difference in claimed structure is merely a difference in the shape of the bevelling.
It has been broadly held that changes in shape are obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the shape of the outlet as taught by Schippers in view of Marven to have a beveled shape.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baldwin (US2006/0182834) and Schurenberg et al. (US2015/0075564) hereinafter Schurenberg.
Regarding claim 11, Schippers teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Schippers does not teach a deposit measuring device within the calibration device, which is adapted to detect deposits adhering to the calibration device due to abrasion of extrudate and/or in interaction with the environment, and which is coupled to the cleaning device to trigger cleaning of the calibration device in dependence on a measured degree of contamination.
In the same field of endeavor regarding extrusion, Baldwin teaches that extrusion calibrators require periodic cleaning due to build up of residue upon the interior walls of the calibrator ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration device as taught periodically clean the calibration device as taught by Baldwin in order to remove buildup of residue upon the interior walls of the calibrator.
In the prior art attempting to solve a similar problem of cleaning a liquid dispenser ([0001]), Schurenberg teaches a deposit measuring device where detection of a deposit can trigger an automatic cleaning of the dispenser for the motivation of providing automatic cleaning without any help from the operator ([0033, 0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Schippers in view of Baldwin with the deposit measuring device as taught by Schurenberg in order to provide automatic cleaning without any help from the operator.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schippers in view of Marven.
Regarding claim 12, Schippers teaches:
System with which a fluid can be introduced into a calibration device of an extrusion device or which can be connected to the calibration device, having at least one device which has a jet nozzle with which a jet of the fluid can be produced (Fig 1: draw plate 5, slot 24; col 5, ln 4-24).
Schippers does not explicitly recite the at least one device is a cleaning device for producing a jet of cleaning agent.
However, Schippers teaches that the fluid is water, which is a well-known cleaning agent. Since water is a cleaning agent, then a device that dispenses water can be considered a cleaning device.
Furthermore, the cleaning agent is material worked upon by the apparatus, and inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Schippers does not teach a flat jet nozzle.
In the same field of endeavor regarding extrusion, Marven teaches using an annular cooling system comprising flat jet nozzles for forming an uninterrupted wall of cooling water (col 3, ln 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the annular slot as taught by Schipper with the flat jet nozzles as taught by Marven and the results would have been predictable since both references teach forming an annular flow of cooling water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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 A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights