Patent Application 17769492 - Apparatus for the Production of Inline Stretched - Rejection
Patent Application 17769492 - Apparatus for the Production of Inline Stretched
Title: Apparatus for the Production of Inline Stretched Tubular Foils by Blowing Process
Application Information
- Invention Title: Apparatus for the Production of Inline Stretched Tubular Foils by Blowing Process
- Application Number: 17769492
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-04-15T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 264
- National Sub-Class: 564000
- Examiner Employee Number: 94400
- Art Unit: 1741
- Tech Center: 1700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0023866đ
- US 0006452đ
Office Action Text
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 03/10/2025 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, ln 15, âin machine directionâ should read âin a machine direction --.
In claim 1, ln 16, âflattedâ should read --flattened--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.âThe specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites wherein the reversing turret haul-off guides without stretching the flattened foil from the flat laying device to a stationary roller. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See MPEP 2173.05(i). Applicant specification contains no support for guiding with or without stretching by the reversing turret haul-off.
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 § 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer et al. (US2011/0006452) hereinafter Bayer in view of Oedl (US2008/0023866) Takashige et al. (US4978484 of record) hereinafter Takashige.
Regarding claim 1, Bayer teaches:
An apparatus for the production of an inline stretched tubular-foil by a blowing process,
the apparatus having a blown foil system (Fig 1: blowing line 1) comprising an extruder (Fig 1: extruder 4), a blowing head (Fig 1: die head 5), a cooling ring ([0035]), a calibrating basket (Annotated Fig 1), a flat laying unit (Fig 1: collapsing boards 8), and a reversing turret haul-off (Fig 1: oscillating take-off unit 9),
wherein plastics in granulated form are plasticized in the extruder to form a viscous mass ([0046]), wherein the mass is formed in a ring shape in the blowing head and discharges discharged through an annular nozzle of the blowing head, wherein the mass forms a circular foil tube ([0023, 0046]),
wherein the circular foil tube is led into the calibrating basket (Fig 1), wherein the circular foil tube is led after the calibrating basket to the flat laying unit (Fig 1), in which the circular foil tube forms an elliptical cross section with an increasing eccentricity, which is formed by two discharge rollers into a double-layer foil web, to form a flattened foil (Fig 1; [0046]),
wherein the reversing turret haul-off guides without stretching the flattened foil from the flat laying device to a stationary roller (Annotated Fig 1; [0046]; Bayer discloses no stretching until orientation unit 2),
a stretching system inline to the stationary roller (Fig 1), wherein the stretching system monoaxially stretches the flattened foil in a machine direction (Fig 1: orientation unit 2; [0046]),
with a first thinness section control system which operates segmented control zones in the cooling ring to form thinness sections in such a way that, during stretching, a foil is produced with a thickness profile with the smallest possible deviations from a medium foil thickness over the complete foil width ([0023, 0035, 0048]),
with the calibrating basket and the flat laying unit acting on the film tube in a region in which the film tube has not yet been laid flat (Annotated Fig 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bayer does not teach the stretching system comprising: one or more directing rollers that direct the flattened foil to a heating roller that heats the flattened foil to a temperature sufficient for a stretching process, a stretch roller, and a nip roller, wherein the stretch roller has a lower circumferential speed compared to the nip roller thereby elongating the flattened foil.
In the same field of endeavor regarding films, Oedl teaches a stretching system comprising: one or more directing rollers (Fig 1: first roller) that direct a foil to a heating roller that heats the flattened foil to a temperature sufficient for a stretching process (Fig 1: preheating rolls 1 to 6; [0021-0022]), a stretch roller, and a nip roller (Fig 1: entry roll 1, exit roll 6), wherein the stretch roller has a lower circumferential speed compared to the nip roller thereby elongating the flattened foil ([0022]) for the motivation of providing a drive device for a preheating roll assembly, which operates reliably and may be easily adjusted to different process parameters ([0006]).
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 stretch system as taught by Bayer with the stretch system as taught by Oedl in order to provide a drive device for a preheating roll assembly, which operates reliably and may be easily adjusted to different process parameters.
Bayer in view of Oedl does not teach a second thinness section control system, wherein the second thinness section control system operates two opposing heat sources.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blowing apparatus, Takashige teaches a thinness section control system which operates two opposing heat sources (Fig 3: infrared ray heaters 14a) between a calibrating system (Fig 3: guide rollers 9,10, nip roller 11) and a flat laying unit (Fig 3: flat guide roll 15) for the motivation of controlling the heating temperature in a divided manner (col 11, ln 53-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus as taught by Bayer in view of Oedl to include the infrared heaters as taught by Takashige in order to control the heating temperature in a divided manner.
Bayer further teaches that the complete film blowing process is regulated by the master control system ([0048]).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches wherein the second thinness section control system is connected to the first thinness section control system.
Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige does not teach operating the two opposing heat sources between the calibrating basket and the flat laying unit.
Takashige teaches placing the two opposing heat sources prior to the flat laying unit (Fig 3).
Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige is silent as to the placement of the two opposing heat sources relative to the calibrating basket.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize there were a limited number of options for placement of the two heat sources relative to the calibrating basket, i.e., before, after, or in the same location.
Furthermore, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try operating the two opposing heat sources after the calibrating basket and there would be a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches controlling the thickness/thinness of a blown film.
Furthermore, in regards to the functional limitations of the claim, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 2, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige does not explicitly recite wherein the second thinness section control system is activated when the segmented control zones of the first thinness section control system are at power limit.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Bayer teaches that the complete film blowing process is regulated by the master control system ([0048]). Therefore the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Furthermore, since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 3, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Bayer teaches that the complete film blowing process is regulated by the master control system ([0048]).
Takashige teaches that the heaters 14a control the thickness in an area at detectors 22 as close to the flat guide rollers as possible (Fig 3; col 12, ln 12-22). This location is analogous to the placement of the second thinness section control system 101 of applicant Fig 4.
While Takashige does not explicitly recite the thinness sections exactly in two folded edges of the flat laying unit, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Takashige teaches placement of the thickness distribution detectors in the same location as in applicant Fig 4. Takashige further teaches that the heaters 14a control the thickness in the area of the flat guide rollers 15 (Fig 3; col 12, ln 12-22) with the detectors 22 being placed as close as possible to monitor the thickness of the area of the film in the flat guide rollers 15. Therefore the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 4, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Bayer further teaches wherein a measuring unit for detecting the thickness profile of the foil produced is provided downstream of the stretching unit, viewed in the transport direction (Fig 1: measuring device 11; [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Bayer teaches that the complete film blowing process is regulated by the master control system ([0048]).
Takashige teaches that the heaters 14a control the thickness in an area at detectors 22 as close to the flat guide rollers as possible (Fig 3; col 12, ln 12-22). This location is analogous to the placement of the second thinness section control system 101 of applicant Fig 4.
While Takashige does not explicitly recite the thinness sections exactly in two folded edges of the flat laying unit, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Takashige teaches placement of the thickness distribution detectors in the same location as in applicant Fig 4. Takashige further teaches that the heaters 14a control the thickness in the area of the flat guide rollers 15 (Fig 3; col 12, ln 12-22) with the detectors 22 being placed as close as possible to monitor the thickness of the area of the film in the flat guide rollers 15. Therefore the prior art apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed functions.
Regarding claim 6, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Bayer further teaches wherein a measuring unit for detecting the thickness profile of the foil produced is provided downstream of the stretching unit, viewed in the transport direction (Fig 1: measuring device 11; [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Bayer further teaches wherein a measuring unit for detecting the thickness profile of the foil produced is provided downstream of the stretching unit, viewed in the transport direction (Fig 1: measuring device 11; [0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Bayer further teaches the flat laying unit is oriented in the same direction as applicant Fig 1 and 4 (Fig 1) and wherein the flat laying unit comprises two triangular side areas (Fig 1).
Takashige further teaches wherein the two opposing heat sources are located at the edge of the two triangular side areas of the flat laying unit (Fig 3).
It would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches wherein the flat laying unit comprises two triangular side areas and the two opposing heat sources are located at the lower edge of the two triangular side areas of the flat laying unit.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lage (US6246028 of record).
Regarding claim 9, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Takashige further teaches wherein the two opposing heat sources are fixed on traverses (Fig 4).
Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige does not teach the traverses move synchronously with a reversing movement of the flat laying unit.
In the same field of endeavor regarding blow molding, Lage teaches heat sources fixed on traverses which can move for the motivation of adjusting the position of the heaters to fit the diameter of the blown tube (Fig 2-4: spindle 22; col 3, ln 23-col 4, ln 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the traverses as taught by Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige to be movable as taught by Lage in order to adjust the position of the heaters to fit the diameter of the blown tube.
N Bayer in view of Oedl, Takashige, and Lage does not teach the traverses move synchronously with a reversing movement of the flat laying unit.
However, "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP 2114. Since the prior art apparatus teaches the claimed structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed functions as well.
Regarding claim 10, Bayer in view of Oedl and Takashige teaches the apparatus of claim 9.
Lage further teaches wherein the two opposing heat sources are adjusted along and transversely to the traverses (Fig 2-4; col 3, ln 23-col 4, ln 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments regarding references no longer relied upon in the art rejection above are moot.
Applicant argues that Takashige does not teach two opposing heat sources. However, Fig 4 of Takashige shows in detail a plurality of opposing heaters 14A that form a ring around the tubular film.
Applicant argues that the heaters of Takashige are intended only to control the heating temperature in a circumferential fashion. However, Takashige further teaches that the individual heaters are able to be operated in a divided manner to provide segmented control of the thickness of the tubular foil (col 11, ln 53-60). Furthermore, the segmented control of claim 1 is directed towards the first thinness control system, which is taught by Bayer. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant arguments regarding placement of the two opposing heat sources are addressed in the art rejection above.
Regarding claim 8, applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach or suggest two opposing heat sources located at the lower edge of the two triangular side areas of the flat laying unit. However, Bayer teaches an apparatus with the flat laying unit oriented tapering upwards with a bottom edge that extends down to the calibrating basket (annotated Fig 1). Takashige teaches a flat laying unit having two triangular side areas (Fig 3: flat guide rolls 15), with the heater 14 located at the edge of the flat guide rolls opposite the tapered ends. The examiner notes that the claim term âat the lower edge of the two triangular side areas of the flat laying unitâ is broad and open ended, and as presented, do not exclude the heater 14 from meeting this limitation.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
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 examinerâs supervisor, Alison 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 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
