DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 07/24/2026, claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are currently amended. Claims 1-12 are considered in the current Office 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Previous Objections/Rejections
Previous 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn based on the Applicant’s amendment. However, new rejections have been established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2024/0326311 (“Iuliano et al” hereinafter Iuliano).
Regarding Claim 1, Iuliano teaches an extrusion film-forming apparatus (Figure 2 and abstract) comprising:
a die (Figure 2, extrusion die system 1) that extrudes a molding material ([0077]) from a slit-shaped extrusion outlet (Figure 2, gap 30 and [0079]);
an actuator (Figure 2, actuator 108) configured to change a slit width of the extrusion outlet (Figure 2 and [0106], actuator 108 configured to move the first lip 18 relative to the second lip 26 and thus change the width of the gap 30); and
a control device (Figure 2, lip assembly adjustment assembly 100) that controls the actuator ([0087], the lip adjustment assembly 100 may control and/or command the actuator 108),
wherein during the extrusion of the molding material, the control device controls the actuator to temporarily decrease the slit width of the extrusion outlet ([0080], lip adjustment assembly 100 is configured to move at least one of the first lip 18 and the second lip 26 to increase or decrease the gap distance 32 , which in turn, adjusts the gauge of the extrudate) such that a notch portion, which is a portion having a locally reduced thickness, is formed in a film extruded from the extrusion outlet (when the gap distance is decreased through the control of lip adjustment assembly, the extruded film will have a reduced thickness which is a notch portion. Thus, the apparatus disclosed by Iuliano is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 7, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a thickness gauge that measures a thickness of the film at a predetermined period ([0087], a sensor determined a current product thickness) and transmits the measured thickness to the control device ([0087]).
Regrading Claim 8, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control device executes a calculation based on a measurement value of the thickness gauge, and operates the actuator such that a designated thickness of the film is obtained ([0086]-[0087], the lip adjustment assembly control and command the actuator to move with feedback controller based on the sensor data of the product thickness).
Regarding Claim 9, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control device increases the temporarily decreased slit width of the extrusion outlet to a width set during production molding ([0086]-[0087], the lip adjustment assembly control and command the actuator to move with feedback controller based on the sensor data of the product thickness and [0106], the actuator 108 can cause movement of a connected engagement member 104 to cause a portion of the first lip 18 to be moved toward or away from the second lip 26 to form the desired gap 30. Thus, the apparatus disclosed by Iuliano is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Regarding Claim 10, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control device increases the slit width to be more than a width set during production molding before temporarily decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet ([0086]-[0087], the lip adjustment assembly control and command the actuator to move with feedback controller based on the sensor data of the product thickness and [0106], the actuator 108 can cause movement of a connected engagement member 104 to cause a portion of the first lip 18 to be moved toward or away from the second lip 26 to form the desired gap 30. Thus, the apparatus disclosed by Iuliano is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2024/0326311 (“Iuliano et al” hereinafter Iuliano) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2020/0290259 (“Maenishi et al” hereinafter Maenishi).
Regarding Claim 2, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: an extruder configured to melt the molding material in a solid state and send the melted molding material to a downstream side.
However, in the same field of die extrusion with adjustable outlet gap, Maenishi teaches an extruder (Figure 1, extruder 10) configured to melt the molding material in a solid state and sends the melted molding material to a downstream side ([0021]-[0023], the material turns from resin pellets into molten resin during the process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Iuliano such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Maenishi because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known die extrusion design well known in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the extruder (Maenishi, Figure 1, extruder 10) includes a hopper (Figure 1, hopper 13), a cylinder (Figure 1, cylinder 11), a screw (Figure 1, extruder might be a screw extruder [0022]), and a crosshead portion (The Examiner is interpreting crosshead portion as any structure that changes a transport direction of the molding material from the Y-axis direction to a Z-axis direction which is consistent with [0029] of instant application. see annotated Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 2, Iuliano fails to teach further comprising: a flow path connected to the downstream side of the extruder.
However, Maenishi teaches a flow path connected to the downstream side of the extruder (see annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Iuliano such that it discloses all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Maenishi because the combination of the known elements provides a predictable result, namely, another known die extrusion design well known in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 5, the modified Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the flow path transports the melted molding material to the die (Maenishi, see annotated Figure 1 and [0025]).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 5, wherein an internal space of the die has an upstream portion connected to the flow path (Maenishi, see annotated Figure 1), a midstream portion located between the upstream portion and a downstream portion (see annotated Figure 1), and the downstream portion having a tapered portion (see annotated Figure 1, a pair of die blocks 21 and 22 that are tapered part [0030]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2024/0326311 (“Iuliano et al” hereinafter Iuliano) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2001009817A (Tanaka), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/15/2026.
Regarding Claim 11, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a volume changer including a chamber connected to change unit that changes a volume of a flow path leading to the extrusion outlet, a piston disposed in the chamber, and an actuator configured to drive the piston, the volume changer being configured to change a volume of the flow path, wherein the control device controls the volume changer change unit to increase the volume of the flow path simultaneously with or after decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Tanaka teaches a volume changer (see annotated Figure 2 and [0015]-[0016], the resistor 38 change the material discharge speed and thus the volume of the material) including a chamber (see annotated Figure 2, recess 33a) connected to change unit that changes a volume of a flow path leading to the extrusion outlet ([0015]-[0016]), a piston disposed in the chamber (see annotated Figure 2, screw 38a), and an actuator configured to drive the piston ([0015], a driver or the like to drive and rotate the screw 38a), the volume changer being configured to change a volume of the flow path [0015]-[0017], the resistors 38 are arranged in the width direction of the flow path 45a without any apparent gap. Therefore, the resistance of the resistor 38 is applied over the entire width of the hard raw material 20, and the resistance of the resistor 38 smoothly changes in the width direction of the flow channel 45a), wherein the control device controls the volume changer change unit to increase the volume of the flow path simultaneously with or after decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet ([0019]-[0020] and [0022]).
Iuliano and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of die extrusion molding to form resin film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Iuliano such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Tanaka to perform feedback adjustment and control the thickness of the manufactured film ([0009]) and to maintain a smooth flow of the material ([0017]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2024/0326311 (“Iuliano et al” hereinafter Iuliano) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2007/111953 (“Muroi et al” hereinafter Muroi), machine translation provided in Office Action dated 06/15/2026.
Regarding Claim 12, Iuliano teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a pressing member configured to press portion of the film hanging down below the notch portion.
However, Muroi teaches a pressing member ([0008] and [0009], a pressing mechanism) configured to press portion of the film hanging down below the notch portion ([0009], pressing mechanism includes a spring that pressed the cutter against the discharge port of the T die by the force of the spring. Thus, the pressing mechanism indirectly pressed upon the portion of the film that is discharged below the discharge port of the T die. Therefore, the apparatus discloses by Muroi is capable of being used as intended as discussed above and thus meets all of the structural limitations as claimed. See MPEP 2114).
Iuliano and Muroi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of die extrusion molding to form resin film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modified the apparatus as taught by Iuliano such that it includes all of the above mentioned limitations as taught by Muroi to accurately control the weight of the cut molten resin, stabilize its shape, and obtain a smooth cut surface ([0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINWEN (Cindy) YE whose telephone number is (571)272-3010. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 - 17:00.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
XINWEN (CINDY) YE
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
