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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025, 09/30/2025, and 10/29/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
The following terms are terms of art and thus are interpreted broadly:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “die lip drive mechanism” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of changing the slit width of the extrusion outlet.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a material delivery unit” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of delivery materials.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a transport unit” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of transporting materials.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a volume change unit” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of changing the volume of a flow path.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a cutting support unit” has been interpreted broadly as any structure that is capable of cutting a film at the outlet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2020/0290259 (“Maenishi et al” hereinafter Maenishi).
Regarding Claim 1, Maenishi teaches an extrusion film-forming apparatus (Figure 1 and abstract) comprising:
a die (Figure 2, T-die 20) that extrudes a molding material from a slit-shaped extrusion outlet ([0025]);
a die lip drive mechanism (Figure 2, heat bolt 23) that changes a slit width of the extrusion outlet (Figure 2 and [0037], the gap between the lips 21 a and 22 a can be adjusted by the tightness of the heat bolt 23); and
a control device that controls the die lip drive mechanism ([0038]-[0039], the control unit 70 performs feedback control of the heater 24 of each heat bolt 23 based on the thickness distribution of the resin film 83 acquired from the thickness sensor 60 by using PID control),
wherein during the extrusion of the molding material, the control device controls the die lip drive mechanism to temporarily decrease the slit width of the extrusion outlet (Figure 2, [0037] and [0039]. The control device controls the movement of the heat bolt 23, when the tightness of the heat bolt 23 is increased, the heat bolt 23 pushes the lip 22a , and the gap between the lips 21a and 22a is narrowed, based on the thickness distribution of the resin film acquired from the thickness sensor ) for cutting the extruded molding material (the apparatus discloses by Maenishi 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 2, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a material delivery unit (Figure 1, extruder 10) that melts 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).
Regarding Claim 3, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the material delivery unit (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, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising: a transport unit connected to the downstream side of the material delivery unit (see annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the transport unit includes a flow path and transports the melted molding material to the die (see annotated Figure 1 and [0025]).
Regarding Claim 6, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the flow path, which is an internal space of the die (see annotated Figure 1), has an upstream portion connected to the flow path of the transport unit (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
PNG
media_image2.png
302
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
blocks 21 and 22 that are tapered part [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a thickness gauge (Figure 1, thickness sensor 60) that measures a thickness of a film at a predetermined period ([0027]) and transmits the measured thickness to the control device ([0028] and [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maenishi 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 die lip drive mechanism such that a designated thickness of the film is obtained ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 9, Maenishi 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 ([0039]. The control device controls the movement of the heat bolt 23, when the tightness of the heat bolt 23 is increased, the heat bolt 23 pushes the lip 22a , and the gap between the lips 21a and 22a is narrowed, based on the thickness distribution of the resin film acquired from the thickness sensor. Thus, the apparatus discloses by Maenishi 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, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control device increases the width to be more than a width set during production molding before temporarily decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet ([0039]. The control device controls the movement of the heat bolt 23, when the tightness of the heat bolt 23 is increased, the heat bolt 23 pushes the lip 22a , and the gap between the lips 21a and 22a is narrowed, based on the thickness distribution of the resin film acquired from the thickness sensor. Thus, the apparatus discloses by Maenishi 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 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020/0290259 (“Maenishi et al” hereinafter Maenishi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2001009817A (Tanaka), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 11, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a volume change unit that changes a volume of a flow path leading to the extrusion outlet, wherein the control device controls the volume change unit to increase the volume of the flow path simultaneously with or after decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet.
However, Tanaka teaches a volume change unit (Figure 2, resistors 38) that changes a volume of a flow path leading to the extrusion outlet ([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 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]).
Maenishi 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 Maenishi 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 US2020/0290259 (“Maenishi et al” hereinafter Maenishi) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2007/111953 (“Muroi et al” hereinafter Muroi), machine translation provided.
Regarding Claim 12, Maenishi teaches the extrusion film-forming apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising: a cutting support unit that applies a force to a portion of a film hanging down below a locally thinned portion formed by decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet.
However, Muroi teaches a cutting support unit (Figure 2, cutter 3) that applies a force to a portion of a film hanging down below a locally thinned portion formed by decreasing the slit width of the extrusion outlet ([0007], the molten resin discharged from the T die can be reliably cut for each shot using a cutter at the discharge port).
Maenishi 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 Maenishi 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]).
Conclusion
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
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights