DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are pending as submitted on 03/29/24,
claims 3-9 being withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-2 in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-2 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, as they appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors such as: “to be laminated conveyed…”, “films in a state of a pair of…”, “to be laminated in a manner of sandwiching the conveying path…”, “can be opened from a conveying path…”, “bodies is able…”, “forms the conveying path”, et cetera. Appropriate review and revision of the claim language to clarify the intended scope is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lemens et al., US 2003/0010456.
The prior art teaches a laminating device capable of laminating a sheet of paper, comprising a pair of thermocompression rollers (32/34) and an upper wound lamina body (18) installed above said rollers, and a lower wound lamina body (20) installed below and immediately in front of said rollers, wherein a structure (102) can be opened in order to permit installation of said wound bodies, which comprises the use of a detachable mount cartridge (46) which holds the lower wound body and features a support surface (118) which forms the work conveying path (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0033-0035 & FIGS. 1-2]).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han, US 2002/0117266.
The prior art teaches a laminating device capable of laminating a sheet of paper, comprising a pair of thermocompression rollers (13/13’) and an upper wound lamina body (F) installed above said rollers, and a lower wound lamina body (F’) installed below and immediately in front of said rollers, wherein a structure (8) can be opened in order to permit installation of said wound bodies (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-6]).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, US 2002/0117266 in view of Matsuo et al., US 5,480,509 & Lemens et al., US 2003/0010456.
The teachings of Han have been detailed above, and while the prior art does not expressly disclose that the lower wound body is mounted in a detachable holding frame, whereby its upper surface forms some of a worksheet conveying path, the use of detachable cassette frames for films have long been widespread in this art (as admitted by Applicants [0009-0010]), as shown for example by Matsuo, which installs a lower wound body into a laminator below the conveyance path & nip rollers in a modular cassette holding frame (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-9]). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Matsuo & Han and integrate a detachable cassette structure for more easily plugging any such part into a standard laminator.
While Matsuo does not expressly disclose whether an upper portion of said cassette “forms the conveying path”, it would have generally been obvious for any installed component to accommodate the path of the work as needed. Further, such designs were also common in this art, as shown for example by Lemens as noted previously above, wherein a cassette also features an upper surface (118) which forms the conveying path for the work (e.g. [0033-0035 & FIGS. 1-2]). It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings and suggestions of Lam, Matsuo & Lemens in order to yield a swappable cassette for its lower wound body, which is also integrated into the design of the machine so as to help convey the work that moves above it across an upper surface in a known manner with predictable success.
Examiner also notes US 2008/0236728 as relevant to the pending claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights