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 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-8, line 1, respectively, ‘Device’ should read “The device” and ‘a wide slot die’ should read “the wide slot die”
In claim 8, line 3, ‘a slot die’ should read “the slot die”
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the gap" in line 1, "the production" in line 1-2, "the longer arm" in line 7, “the shorter arm” in line 7, and “this region” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 1 is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the joint" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 2 is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the same longitudinal direction" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the region" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "these components" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the desired position" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which or where the items are pointed out. Claim 8 is indefinite.
Claims 2-8 depending on claim 1 are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yapel et al. (WO2023/059333) in view of Nakano (US 2012/0024226).
Regarding claim 1, Yapel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 8, 10, device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die (item 100, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 16-21)) for the production of flat-web extrusion products, wherein the wide slot die has a flexible lip (item 106, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 22-23)), on the length of which a plurality of adjusting elements (items 120, 124, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 29-32)) for adjusting the gap profile of the lip are arranged at regular intervals (e.g., as shown in Fig. 10), wherein each adjusting element comprises a drive (items 120, 124, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 29-32)), in the form of a step motor (page 6, lines 23-26), the drive actuating a push rod (item 126, Fig. 1 (page 6, lines 23-32) or item 826 in Fig. 8 (page 14, line 2)) which is connected in an articulated manner to the arm of a two-sided lever (item 827, Fig. 8 (page 14, line 5)), and the (other) arm of the lever (item 827, Fig. 8 (page 14, line 5)) interacting with a linearly guided pressure pin (item 829, Fig. 8 (page 14, line 9)) which in turn acts on the flexible lip in order to adjust the gap in this region.
However, Yapel does not disclose the two-sided lever 827 is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle.
In the same field of endeavor, lip drive part, Nakano discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a torque arm (lever) 11 is disposed between the base plate 12a and the back-up plate 12b. Transmission part 20 is provided to the (short arm) side of the torque arm 11 and can push/pull the flexible lip part 3 by the rotation of the torque arm 11. Push-side bellows 14 and pull-side bellows 16 that are provided to the (longer arm) side of the torque arm 11 are driving the rotation of the torque arm ([0048]). Here, transmission part 20 is the equivalence to the linearly guided pressure pin and the bellows 14 and 16 are the equivalence to the spindle.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Yapel to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Nakano teaches that it is known to have the two-sided lever is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 2, Yapel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, the push rod is a spindle with an external thread which engages in a bushing (item 828, Fig. 8) with an internal thread (page 17, lines 15-17) which can be rotated by the drive and is connected to the joint on the other arm of the lever, or conversely, the spindle is directly rotatably mounted by the drive and engages in an internally threaded bushing connected to the joint on the other arm of the lever (page 14, lines 5-13 and page 17, lines 13-22).
However, Yapel does not disclose the two-sided lever 827 is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle.
Nakano discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a torque arm (lever) 11 is disposed between the base plate 12a and the back-up plate 12b. Transmission part 20 is provided to the (short arm) side of the torque arm 11 and can push/pull the flexible lip part 3 by the rotation of the torque arm 11. Push-side bellows 14 and pull-side bellows 16 that are provided to the (longer arm) side of the torque arm 11 are driving the rotation of the torque arm ([0048]). Here, transmission part 20 is the equivalence to the linearly guided pressure pin and the bellows 14 and 16 are the equivalence to the spindle.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Yapel to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Nakano teaches that it is known to have the two-sided lever is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 3, Yapel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, the two-sided lever (item 827, Fig. 8 (page 14, line 5)) is an angle lever (e.g., as shown in Fig. 8), the other arm of the lever being arranged in approximately the same longitudinal direction as the pressure pins and the arm of the lever extending approximately perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the pressure pins (page 14, lines 5-6).
However, Yapel does not disclose the two-sided lever 827 is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle.
Nakano discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a torque arm (lever) 11 is disposed between the base plate 12a and the back-up plate 12b. Transmission part 20 is provided to the (short arm) side of the torque arm 11 and can push/pull the flexible lip part 3 by the rotation of the torque arm 11. Push-side bellows 14 and pull-side bellows 16 that are provided to the (longer arm) side of the torque arm 11 are driving the rotation of the torque arm ([0048]). Here, transmission part 20 is the equivalence to the linearly guided pressure pin and the bellows 14 and 16 are the equivalence to the spindle.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Yapel to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Nakano teaches that it is known to have the two-sided lever is provided with its short arm to the linearly guided pressure pin of the flexible lip and its longer arm to the spindle. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 4, Yapel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 10, the adjusting elements (items 120, 124, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 29-32) or item 926, Fig. 10 (page 16, lines 6-11)) are arranged in the region of the pressure pins along the slot die at a certain distance from one another.
However, Yapel does not explicitly disclose that, the adjusting elements are arranged in the region of the pressure pins along the slot die at a distance of about 2 cm to 3 cm.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the adjusting elements are arranged in the region of the pressure pins along the slot die at a distance of about 2 cm to 3 cm) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of positioning the adjustment units in an effort to improve smoothly controlling the thickness of the flat-web extrusion products.
Regarding claim 5, Yapel discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 10, an upper die block 904 and series of spindles 926 to adjust the shape of a flexible die lip 906 (page 16, lines 6-8).
However, Yapel does not explicitly disclose that, the adjusting elements are arranged in the region of the drives in two rows running parallel to the slot die, offset to each other, so that alternately one adjusting element of one row and one from the other row lies next to each other.
Nakano discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, a torque arm (lever) 11 is disposed between the base plate 12a and the back-up plate 12b. Transmission part 20 is provided to the (short arm) side of the torque arm 11 and can push/pull the flexible lip part 3 by the rotation of the torque arm 11. Push-side bellows 14 and pull-side bellows 16 that are provided to the (longer arm) side of the torque arm 11 are driving the rotation of the torque arm ([0048]). Here, transmission part 20 is the equivalence to the linearly guided pressure pin and the bellows 14 and 16 are the equivalence to the spindle.
Nakano discloses that, the lip drive part 100 for a T-die is provided with actuators 4 ([0045], lines 1-2 from bottom).
Nakano discloses that, compressed air is sent to the push-side bellows 14 through a joint 18a ([0051]) and compressed air is sent to the pull-side bellows 16 through a joint 18b ([0052]). As illustrated in Fig. 1, there are two rows of actuators 4 running parallel to the slot die.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Yapel to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Nakano teaches that it is known to have the adjusting elements are arranged in the region of the drives in two rows running parallel to the slot die, offset to each other, so that alternately one adjusting element of one row and one from the other row lies next to each other. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 8, Yapel discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a control unit is provided which is connected to all drives of all actuating elements of a slot die, wherein the control unit brings the individual actuating elements into the desired position on the basis of sensor data (page 6, lines 23-33) about the instantaneous thickness profile of the extruded product and/or on the basis of user inputs (page 5, lines 29-32 and page 6, lines 1-3).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yapel et al. (WO2023/059333) and Nakano (US 2012/0024226) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Druschel (US 6,017,207).
Regarding claim 6, the combination does not explicitly disclose that, the pressure pin is guided in a linearly moveable manner in a connecting element.
In the same field of endeavor, adjusting die lip gap, Druschel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, a cover plate 36 advantageously covers a plurality of push/pull blocks 38 and also covers a plurality of spacer mounts 44 (col. 4, lines 14-16). Spacer mounts 44 also include apertures 45 for attachment of cover plate 36 (col. 4, lines 27-29).
Here, the push/pull blocks 38 are considered as the equivalence to the pressure pin(s). The cover plate 36 is considered as the equivalent to the connecting element. The space under the cover plate 36 is considered as the corresponding receptacle. Spacer mounts 44 are considered as the equivalence to the ridges.
Thus, Druschel discloses that, the pressure pin is guided in a linearly movable manner in the connecting element, the connecting element serving to connect the device to the slot die, and the connecting element being able to be mounted in a corresponding receptacle on the slot die via two ridges.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Druschel teaches that it is known to have the pressure pin is guided in a linearly moveable manner in a connecting element. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Regarding claim 7, the combination does not explicitly disclose that, the pressure pin is tapered or rounded at both ends.
Druschel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, push/pull blocks 39 each beneficially include a finger 37 defined by a recess 4, for inserting into a groove 35 of the lower lip 28 (col. 5, lines 17-20). It is noticed that, the finger 37 is provided with a rounded surface for contacting the lip 28.
Druschel discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, thus, pins 42 are rotatably engaged in actuator bar 40 for positioning of heads 60 at the angle 8 or another suitable angle that corresponds to the angle of slots 39. As a result, connection of push/pull blocks 38 with generally laterally sliding actuator bar 40 is facilitated (col. 6, lines 6-10). It is noticed that, for the contacting between the slots 39 and the pins 42, the rounded shape of the pins (including its heads 60) are provided.
It would have been obvious to use the method of the combination to have the device for adjusting the gap of a wide slot die as Druschel teaches that it is known to have the pressure pin is tapered or rounded at both ends. It has been held that the combination of known techniques to improve similar methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights