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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an impregnation plant claimed in claim 1-12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD FOR DETERMINING A QUANTITATIVELY DEFINED RATIO OF MELAMINE-FORMALDEHYDE RESIN AND UREA-FORMALDEHYDE RESIN IN AT LEAST ONE PAPER LAYER IMPREGNATED WITH A MIXTURE OF THESE RESINS.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
1. (Proposed Amendments) A method for determining [[the]] a quantitative ratio (a lack of an antecedent basis) of a melamine-formaldehyde resin and a urea-formaldehyde resin in at least one paper layer impregnated with a mixture of these resins, wherein [[the]] an impregnation (a lack of an antecedent basis) is carried out in a plant for impregnating at least one paper layer passing through the plant, the method comprising the steps of:
impregnating of several paper layers with resin mixtures, each paper layer with different quantitatively defined ratios of a melamine-formaldehyde resin and a urea-formaldehyde resin as reference samples;
recording of at least one NIR spectrum of each of the reference samples using at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range between 500 nm and 2500 nm, preferably between 700 nm and 2000 nm, particularly preferably between 900 nm and 1700 nm, and especially advantageously between 1450 nm and 1550 nm;
correlating the different quantitatively defined ratios (a previously recited limitation) of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin in the reference samples to [[the]] recorded NIR spectra (a lack of an antecedent basis) of [[said]] the reference samples;
establishing a calibration model for [[the]] a correlation (a lack of an antecedent basis) between [[the]] spectral data (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the recorded NIR spectra and [[the]] associated quantitatively defined ratios of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin of the reference samples by a multivariate data analysis;
impregnating at least one paper layer with a resin mixture of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin;
recording at least one NIR spectrum of the at least one impregnated paper layer using the at least one NIR measuring head in a wavelength range between 500 nm and 2500 nm, preferably between 700 nm and 2000 nm, in particular preferably between 900 nm and 1700 nm and especially advantageously between 1450 nm and 1550 nm; and
determining a quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin in the at least one impregnated paper layer by comparing the at least one NIR spectrum recorded for the at least one impregnated paper layer with the established calibration model .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
2. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to according to claim 1, wherein the determining the quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin is carried out in a pre-dried impregnated paper layer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin is carried out in [[at]] the at least one paper layer pre-impregnated or core-impregnated the resin mixture.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
4. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin in [[at]] the at least one paper layer pre- impregnated or core-impregnated the resin mixture is performed after leaving a first impregnation station as part of [[a]] an impregnation plant (claim 10) for impregnating [[at]] the at least one paper layer passing through [[said]] the impregnation plant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
5. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to according to claim 4, wherein, following a pre-impregnation of the at least one paper layer in [[a]] the first impregnation station (a previously recited limitation in claim 4), a surface impregnation of the at least one pre-impregnated paper layer takes place in a second impregnation station.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
6. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin in a pre-impregnated paper layer is carried out continuously and online.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
7. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim1, wherein the quantitatively defined ratio of the melamine-formaldehyde resin and the urea-formaldehyde resin in the resin mixture used for a pre-impregnation of the at least one paper layer is between 90% by weight :10% by weight and 10% by weight : 90% by weight, preferably between 75% by weight : 25% by weight and 25% by weight : 75% by weight, more preferably between 55% by weight : 45% by weight and 45% by weight : 55% by weight.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
8. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim1, wherein the spectral data (a previously recited limitation in claim 1) from [[the]] an entire recorded spectral range (a lack of an antecedent basis) are used to establish the calibration model (claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
9. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim 1, wherein the spectral data from the recorded NIR spectra having a spectral range between 1450 nm and 1550 nm [[are]] is used for establishing the calibration model, which [[are]] is pre-treated by is subsequently fed to the multivariate data analysis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
13. (Proposed Amendments) The method according to claim [[1]] 1, for controlling impregnation plants by using the determined data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
10. (Proposed Amendments) An impregnation plant for impregnating at least one paper layer passing through [[the]] a system comprises:
[[-]] a first impregnation station for a pre-impregnation of at least one paper layer with a resin mixture of a melamine-formaldehyde resin and a urea-formaldehyde resin, [[and]]
[[-]] a second impregnation station for a surface impregnation of the at least one pre-impregnated paper layer, and
[[-]] at least one pre-impregnated paper layer after the pre-impregnation in the first impregnation station.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
11. (Proposed Amendments) The impregnation plant according to claim 10, further comprising:
a first drying station is provided downstream of the first impregnation station,
wherein the at least one NIR measuring head is arranged downstream of the first drying station.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. (Proposed Amendments) The impregnation plant according to claim 10, wherein the at least one NIR measuring head moves transversely over [[the]] a width (a lack of an antecedent basis) of the at least one pre-impregnated paper layer (a previously recited limitation in claim 10) and analyses specific problem areas.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover a corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: a first impregnation system, a second impregnation station, at least one NIR measuring head, and a first drying station in claims 10-12.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover a corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites in lines 11-12 and 23-24 the broad recitation “a wavelength range between 500 nm and 2500 nm”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 700 nm and 2000 nm, particularly preferably between 900 nm and 1700 nm, and especially advantageously between 1450 nm and 1550 nm,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites a limitation “the system” in line 2, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “at least one NIR measuring head”, and the claim also recites “in particular at least one NIR multi measuring head”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites a limitation “the paper” in line 3, which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 fails to further limit the method by reciting an intended use (“for controlling …”). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kalwa (U. S. Patent No. 12,578,268 B2) disclosed a method for determining an adhesive penetration into at least one porous coating material.
Hasch et al. (U. S. Patent No. 12,504,367 B2) disclosed a method for determining a penetration of a resin into at least one porous coating material.
Kalwa (U. S. Patent No. 12,487,174 B2) disclosed a method for simultaneously determining parameters of at least one resin layer applied to at least one carrier material.
Cowan et al. (U. S. Patent No. 7,279,684 B2) disclosed a method of using NIR spectroscopy to monitor components of engineered wood products.
Känsäkoski et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,717,148 B2) disclosed a method and an apparatus for measuring coating.
Dessipri et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,639,044 B2) disclosed a composite production with near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy.
Nordin et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6,414,312 B1) disclosed a method for controlling a process for a production of a cellulose fiber containing product.
Engström et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,965,888 A) disclosed a prediction of properties of a board using a spectroscopic method combined with a multivariate calibration.
An English translation of EP3075906 A1 by Patent Translate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen C. Ho, whose telephone number is (571) 272-2491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, David J. Makiya, can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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.
Allen C. Ho, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Allen C. Ho/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Allen.Ho@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights