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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Laminating processor in claim 1, disclosed as two pairs of nip rollers 263 and 264 in Fig. 1;
Hardware processor in claim 1, disclosed as a controller/cpu 21 in Fig. 2;
Heater configured to fuse an adhesive layer of film in claim 1 is not interpreted as requiring any particular structure, only a heater that is capable of reaching a desired temperature for the process it is designed to be used in;
Image former in claim 17, disclosed as a printer 131 in Fig. 1;
Control device in claim 21, disclosed as a controller/cpu 11 in Fig. 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H05338039 (hereinafter “D1”) in view of JP 2015157407 (hereinafter “D2”).
As to claim 1, D1 discloses a laminating apparatus comprising: a laminating processor that executes laminating processing of laminating a film on a recording medium on which an image is formed; and a hardware processor that acquires information regarding image formation (image density, sheet thickness) on the recording medium and determines whether to execute the laminating processing by the laminating processor on the recording medium based on the information regarding the image formation (the lamination process is prohibited from performing and determines to perform the lamination process only when the heating means reaches a required temperature based upon other parameters measured by processor) (¶13-16).
As for the claim limitations required that the hardware processor is configured so that when a determination that the recording medium cannot be thermally processed based on information regarding image formation, and that the hardware processor is configured not to execute the laminating processing by the laminating processor, irrespective of a temperature of the heater, it is the position of the Examiner that configuring a processor to make a determination not to perform a lamination step because of information regarding image formation is known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious at the time of filing. D2 discloses a laminating apparatus (Abstract). D2 discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to configure a hardware processor to make a determination not to perform a lamination step because of information regarding image formation and roughness of the materials (lamination step occurring if photographic paper is detected (smooth) vs. other paper which would be relatively rougher) (P3, L32-55; P4, L54-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the controller configuration of D2 in the apparatus taught by D1 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional means for controlling lamination components in a lamination apparatus. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
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). Here, the apparatus of D1 contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 2, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The apparatus of D1 measures the thickness of the medium processed by the apparatus (¶13-16).
As to claim 3, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. The hardware processor acquires information regarding the laminating processing (heater temperature) and determines whether to execute the laminating processing based on the information regarding the laminating processing (D1; ¶13-16).
As to claim 4, the apparatus of claim 3 is taught as seen above. The hardware processor detects the heat capacity of the medium processed and controls the temperature of the heater (¶14, 51).
As to claim 5, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the apparatus can perform an electrophotographic printing method is performed by a photosensitive drum ( ¶22).
As to claims 6 and 7, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the apparatus has a laminating heater and that the hardware processor controls the temperature of the heater (¶11-16).
As to claim 8, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the apparatus includes a pressurizer (47a, 47b) (Fig. 1).
As to claim 9, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the hardware processor controls the processing speed of the laminating processing since it can bring it to a stop if the heater has not reached a required temperature (¶60).
As to claim 10, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the apparatus can mount multiple films (36a, 36b) for lamination (Fig. 1) and that the controller is configured to account for the thickness (type/selection) of film to be processed so as to determine a necessary heat for the heaters in the lamination process (¶51).
As to claim 11, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since it is drawn to materials worked upon limitations.
As to claim 12, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the apparatus can determine and notify that the lamination process is not to be executed (¶11-16).
As to claims 13 and 14, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the hardware processor when the hardware processor determines not to execute the laminating processing it changes a processing condition of the laminating processing since it stops the laminating processing step and notifies that the lamination processing step was stopped (Id.).
As to claim 15, claim 13 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the processor is configured to receive predetermined information, i.e. information relating to the necessary heating parameters such as heat capacity of sheet, etc., and changes the processing condition (heating temperature) based on that information (Id.).
As to claim 16, claim 15 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the information relates to a predetermined film information (heat capacity) (Id.).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above since it recites a processor that is configured with the same limitations recited in claim 1.
As to claim 18, the apparatus/system of claim 17 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the laminating processor is independent and in communication with the hardware processor (Fig. 1; (¶11-16).
As to claim 19, the apparatus/system of claim 17 is taught as seen above. D1 discloses that the hardware processor determines not to execute the laminating processing and does not cause the image former to execute the image formation (¶13).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 7-10 that none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses that the hardware processor is configured to make a decision according to information regarding the image formation including information regarding at least one of a type of thickness or a surface roughness of a recording medium, said decision is to engage the lamination process or not. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, D2 discloses it is known and conventional in the art to make a lamination decision dependent upon the information of the recording medium roughness (smooth photographic paper vs other paper).
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights