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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/02/25.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what is required by the claim as it is dependent on itself.(as described in claim 1). For the purposes of examination, this is considered to not depend from any other claim. It is unclear what is meant by the convex roller rolls relative to the first concave roller and the second concave roller. And the mirror roller rolls relative to the second concave roller. This does not seem to mean they rotate relative to one another as the phrase “rolls relative to” would normally be read. Does this mean the rolls they have nips with? For the purposes of examination, the rollers a roll rolls relative to is considered to be a roll it has a nip with. So the convex roller has a nip with both the first and second concave roller. IT is unclear what is meany by “Convex grains”. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to refer to convex raised areas.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a first concave roller” of line 7 is the same “a first concave roller” of lines 2-3. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean it is located a distance away from the nip.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” of line 8 is the same “a second concave roller” of line 3. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean it is located a distance away from the nip.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a convex roller” of line 9 is the same “a convex roller” of line 3. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean it is located a distance away from the nip.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “a mirror roller” of line 11 is the same “a mirror roller” of lines 3-4. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean it is located a distance away from the nip.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-4 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what is meant by the rollers meeting on the side of the first and second extruder head. Normally “on the side of” would be taken to mean next to, i.e. not above or below, but none of the figures show the first extruder in that orientation relative to the rollers. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to mean that there is nothing between the rollers and the extruder head.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-5 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. It is unclear if “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-4 are the same rollers as those of lines 4-5 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, it is unclear what is meant by the “line of center” with regards to rollers. A line of center is a line that connects the centers of two circles, but circles are two-dimensional. Rollers have three dimensions. A line connecting two lines could be at multiple angles to both of them and still connect them(25o, 90o etc.). A Z shape has two lines(top and bottom) connected by another line. For the purposes of examination a “line of center” is considered to be a plane that passes through the center axes of the rollers being referred to.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-4 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. It is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-3 are the same rollers as those of lines 4 and 6-7 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if “a convex roller” of line 3 is the same roller as in claim 1 or an additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers. It is unclear what is meant by a centering angle. For the purposes of examination, this is considered to be the angle of the wrapping arc, i.e. a measurement of the degree the substrate is wrapped around the roller.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” of line 3 and “a mirror roller” of line 3 is the same roller as in claim 1 or an additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers. It is unclear what is meant by the extruding head moving a distance away as that implies motion during the manufacturing which is confusing. For the purposes of examination this is considered to mean it is located a distance away from the nip.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” and “a mirror roller” of line 3 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers. It is unclear if the heating device has a temperature of 30-80C or it heats the substrate to 30-80C, since normally the temperature of the heating device is not described.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” of line 3 is the same roller in claim 1 or an additional one. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers. It is unclear what is meant by heating “At” a temperature of 200-400C. Does this mean it heats it to that temperature or that the heating is at that temperature?
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” and “a mirror roller” of lines 34 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hot melt adhesive membrane roll" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the membrane winding roll of line 2?
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear if “a second concave roller” of line 3 is the same roller in claim 1 or an additional one. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same roller.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “ “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 2-4 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. It is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “a second concave roller” “a convex roller”, and “a mirror roller” of lines 5-6 are the same rollers as those of lines 3-4 or additional ones. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same rollers.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second slide rail" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear if “a first concave roller”, “ “a convex roller”, “a second concave roller” and “a mirror roller” of lines 3-4 are the same rollers in claim 1 or additional ones. It is unclear if “a first concave roller” of line 3 is the same roller as those of line 2 or an additional one. It is unclear if “a transmission mechanism” of line 3 is the same “a transmission mechanism” of line 6 or a different one. For the purposes of examination they are considered to be the same.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 3, “the rails” in 4, the “workshop floor” in line 5 and “the wheel teeth” of rails 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is meant by some wheels being on both sides oppositely. This is considered to mean there are some wheels on both sides. It is suggested that one of “the wheel teeth” of wheels and “the wheel teeth” of rails be changed so that both are not “the wheel teeth”
While examiner has attempted to provide a comprehensive list of all the 112 issues, the claims are replete with issues and she may have missed some. Applicant is encouraged to review the claims for any further issues.
The art rejections are based on the actually claimed elements as best as can be determined by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is more than one sentence. A claim should only contain one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is more than one sentence. A claim should only contain one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is more than one sentence. A claim should only contain one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim is more than one sentence. A claim should only contain one sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: if applicant amends the claims to claim a first concave roller, a convex roller having a i\nip with the first concave roller and a second concave roller and a mirror roller with a nip with the second concave roller wherein the concave rollers have concavities and the convex roller has raised areas that match the concavities on both the first and second concave roller, the claims would be allowable. While it is known to extrude between a convex and concave roller (US Patent 3,857,664) and have a second concave roller, the second concave roller (33) does not have a nip with the convex roller, but rather has a nip with the first concave roller. There would be no reason to change the location of this roll as this would change the product being made. While sets of 4 rollers in sequence are known (US Publication 2012/0052281, 2022/0063167), none of these rollers have concave or convex regions. While Bjorkqvist (US Patent 12,115,710) does show two concave rollers with an extruded material, the convex roller is replaced by a flat anvil, and the reference is directed to keeping the sheet with the concavities flat during bonding, so replacing the anvil with a roll would detract from the inventive concept. While CN 214872848U does teach most of the invention, it is by the same(single) inventor and published within a year of the effective filing date of the PCT and thus is not available as art as a 102b1 grace period exception. The examiner notes the foregoing is based on the merits as the examiner presently understands them and this allowability determination may or may not change with claim amendments that reshape the claims in a manner consistent with the disclosure and 112 requirements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746