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
Applicant’s arguments directed to the restriction file 15 January 2026 were persuasive. The restriction has been withdrawn and claims 1-20 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the label for Figure 13A is confusing and incorrect. In particular the portion below “FIG. 13A” indicating Fig. 13, Fig. 13A and Fig. 13B needs to be deleted. There is only one figure, and it should only have one number, i.e. “FIG. 13A”. See 37 CFR 1.84(u). 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
As noted above in the objection to the drawing, Figure 13A should simply be labeled “FIG. 13A”. There is no Figure 13, only Figures 13A and 13B. Accordingly, references in the specification to FIG. 13 should be deleted or corrected. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 25, 165 and 166).
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 the 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 the 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 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 limitations are:
i. Claims 1, 4, 8-13 and 20, “lamination processing device”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a thermal pressure roller pair and a conveyance roller pair, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 158). This term is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 2-3 in view of the recited thermal pressure roller pair and conveyance roller pair structure in claim 2.
ii. Claims 18-19, “cord winding portion”, which has been interpreted as a pair of L-shaped members, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 318).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
iii. Claims 1, 4, 10-13 and 17-20, “sheet processing device”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC (f) in view of the recited sheet separator structure.
iv. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9 and 11-13, “sheet separator”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC (f) because one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the specification, would have understood this term to refer to the name for a broad class of structures which separate sheets.
v. Claims 11 and 13-17, “cord holder”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC (f) because one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the specification, would have understood this term to refer to the name for a broad class of structures which hold a cord.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 3 should read --a sheet separator configured to:-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 3, line 4, the examiner suggests --to apply the heat and pressure-- to better reference the heat and pressure of intervening claim 2 and thereby improve claim readability.
Regarding claim 11, line 3 should read --a sheet separator configured to:-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 11, line 10 should read --processing device configured to:-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 11, lines 12-13, the examiner suggests --a feeding port from which the two sheets and the inner sheet are fed, the feeding port located on a first side face , the sheet separator having side faces including the first side face;-- to improve the claim readability. The current phrase “on one of side faces of the sheet separator;” is grammatically awkward.
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 1-10 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, line 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the two sheets of a second enclosed two-ply sheet”. In particular, unlike the two-ply sheet having two sheets recited in line 4, the second enclosed two-ply sheet is not recited as having two sheets. Moreover, a ply is not the same thing as a sheet. A single sheet can have multiple plies. Similarly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inner sheet” and “the two sheets” of the second enclosed two-ply sheet in line 11. There is also insufficient antecedent basis for the two sheets disposed outside the sheet separator in lines 11-12 because this arrangement is not recited for the second enclosed two-ply sheet. The examiner suggests using claim language to introduce the structure of the second enclosed two-ply sheet.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haraguchi (US 2023/0001731 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haraguchi teaches a sheet processing system comprising a sheet processing device including a sheet separator (108, 109, 116 - Figure 2; paragraphs 57 and 69-81; Figures 3-9) configured to separate a non-bonding portion of a two-ply sheet having two sheets overlapped and bonded together at a bonding portion (paragraph 52); and, insert an inner sheet between the two sheets of the two-ply sheet separated to form a first enclosed two-ply sheet (paragraphs 93-96); and a lamination processing device (120, 121 - Figure 2; paragraphs 56 and 149) configured to bond the two sheets of the first enclosed two-ply sheet (paragraphs 56 and 149); and bond the two sheets of a second enclosed two-ply sheet, in which the inner sheet is inserted between the two sheets of the second enclosed two-ply sheet disposed outside the sheet separator (paragraphs 155, 170 and 175-176; Figure 30); and a relay conveyor 113 downstream from the sheet separator and upstream from the lamination processing device in a sheet conveyance direction to convey the first enclosed two-ply sheet from the sheet separator to the lamination processing device (Figures 2 and 30), wherein the lamination processing device is attachable to a sheet feeder (102, 105 - Figure 30) to directly feed the second enclosed two-ply sheet to the lamination processing device. It is noted that in the disclosed second mode, Haraguchi feeds an assembled two-ply sheet S with inserted inner sheet P, referenced as a set sheet PS, directly to the lamination processing device (120, 121) without performing any separation (paragraphs 170 and 176). Accordingly, the structure of Haraguchi is capable of performing this claimed function.
Regarding claim 4, Haraguchi teaches circuitry configured to control the sheet processing device and the lamination processing device to perform an automatic mode (automatic separation and assembly prior to lamination) to feed the first enclosed two-ply sheet from the sheet processing device to the lamination processing device through the relay conveyor (Example 3; paragraphs 5, 102-115); control the lamination processing device to perform a manual mode (manual separation and assembly prior to lamination) to directly feed the second enclosed two-ply sheet from the sheet feeder to the lamination processing device (paragraphs 169-176; Figure 30); and change an operation of the sheet processing system between the automatic mode and the manual mode (paragraph 152).
Regarding claim 9, the arrangement shown in Figure 2 of Haraguchi shows relay conveyor 113 is attached to at least one of the sheet separator (108, 109, 116) or the lamination processing device (120, 121).
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, 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2011/0011512 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Haraguchi teaches the lamination processing device includes, from right to left of Figure 2, first second and third thermal pressure roller pairs 120 to apply heat and pressure to the first and second enclosed two-ply sheets. Either the second or third pair is taken here to satisfy the claimed thermal pressure roller pair. The first pair is taken as the claimed conveyance roller pair configured to convey the first or second enclosed two-ply sheet from the relay conveyor 113 to the thermal pressure roller pair as interpreted above. However Haraguchi does not recite the first pair has a conveyance function, i.e. a roller of the pair is driven. However, in the art of laminators, it is known to drive such roller pairs to provide the desired thermal treatment. See Lee (Figures 2-3; paragraphs 24-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide driving structure to the first thermal roller pair of Haraguchi and thereby satisfy the claimed conveyance roller pair because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known suitable arrangement for providing the desired thermal treatment for lamination, as suggested by the teachings of Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Haraguchi does not recite the claimed forward and reverse rotation capabilities of the thermal pressure roller pair and the conveyance roller pair as interpreted above. However Lee teaches these limitations for allowing a response to a jammed sheet which avoids a breakdown of the laminator (paragraphs 5, 7, 10-13 and 31-33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Haraguchi because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Lee
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi as applied to claims 1, 4 and 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Haraguchi teaches that it is known to make modules detachably attached such that only the desired functionality is desired (paragraph 179). Haraguchi also teaches that only lamination may be desired (paragraph 176), only separation and insertion may be desired (paragraph 177-178) or both may be desired (Figure 2), but does not recite the lamination processing device is detachably attached to the sheet processing device. In view of these facts, the examiner’s position is that providing detachable attachment between modules for allowing only the desired functionality is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in Haraguchi because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow for providing either or both of the lamination and separation/insertion functionality as suggested by the above noted teachings of Haraguchi for the reasons provided above.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Uang (US 5445700).
Regarding claim 11, Haraguchi teaches a sheet processing system comprising a sheet processing device including a sheet separator configured to separate a non-bonding portion of a two-ply sheet having two sheets overlapped and bonded together at a bonding portion; and insert an inner sheet between the two sheets of the two-ply sheet separated to form an enclosed two-ply sheet; and a lamination processing device, the lamination processing device configured to bond the two sheets of the enclosed two-ply sheet, wherein the sheet separator has a feeding port from which the two sheets and the inner sheet are fed, the feeding port on a first side face of the sheet separator, the sheet separator having side faces including the first side face; and a feeding area in the vicinity of the feeding port, the lamination processing device has an ejection port from which the enclosed two-ply sheet bonded by the lamination processing device is ejected; and an ejection area in the vicinity of the ejection port.
Haraguchi differs from claim 11 in that:
i. Haraguchi does not teach a cord holder.
ii. Haraguchi does not teach the lamination processing device includes a power cord.
ii. Haraguchi does not teach the cord holder holds the power cord to be extended outside the feeding area and the ejection area.
(i, ii and iii) It is known in the related art to provide a laminator with a power cord and a cord holder satisfied by an aperture which holds the power cord in a desired location. See Uang (Figures 5-6; column 2, lines 46-47). As to locating the power cord, the claimed feeding area and ejection area are broadly recited and are taken as respective feeding and ejection areas where placement of a power cord would interfere with sheet feeding or ejection, i.e. too close the area where feeding and ejection respectively occur. As seen in Figures 5-6 of Uang, the power cord is positioned away from such locations where the cord would interfere with feeding and ejection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Haraguchi because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably power and position a power cord in the device of Haraguchi as suggested by the above noted teachings of Uang.
Claim 20 is satisfied for the reasons provided above, with respect to claim 10.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi in view of Uang as applied to claims 11 and 20 above, and further in view of Lowder (US 4354650).
Regarding claims 17-18, Haraguchi does not teach a cord holder slidably movable to change a position of the cord holder in the sheet processing device or a cord winding portion around which the power cord is windable. However in the art of storing a power cord, it is known to provide these limitations for an electrical device requiring a power cord. See Lowder (Figure 9-11; column 6, line 58 to column 7, line 23). As seen in Lowder, the claimed slidable holder to change a position and cord winding portion are provide for cord storage and ease of release the stored cord. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified apparatus of Haraguchi because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Lowder.
Regarding claim 19, while not recited by Haraguchi, Lowder suggests the cord winding portion may be detachably attached to the electrical device requiring a power cord, for example with bolts which are naturally detachable by unscrewing (column 7, lines 5-8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified apparatus of Haraguchi because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably mount the cord winding portion as suggested by the teachings of Lowder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 12-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Correction of the above noted minor objections to the claims is also required.
Regarding claims 5, 7 and 12, the closest prior art of record is applied above. In combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide the additional combined claimed limitations of claim 5, claim 7 or claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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 C. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights