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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660).
With regards to claim 1, Mueller teaches a laminator (Abstract) including rollers for moving material, the rollers including a first roller and a second roller, each roller having circumferential channels, a first anti-wrap component positioned in a channel of the first roller and a second anti-wrap component positioned in the second channel (paragraphs 6 and 14).
Mueller fail to explicitly disclose that the first and second channel are self-healing.
Czaplewski discloses a self-healing thermal interface material includes a reactive silicone-based material and a thermally conductive filler material (Abstract), used in the same field of endeavor as Mueller (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used self-healing channels in Mueller’s laminator. The rationale being that, as stated by Czaplewski, the self-healing channels avoids cracking or voiding from occurring (paragraph 39).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Mueller and Czaplewski are presented above. Additionally, Mueller teaches that the first anti-wrap component is not opposed in the same vertical plane to another anti-wrap component (paragraph 18).
With regards to claim 3, the teachings of Mueller and Czaplewski are presented above. Additionally, Mueller teaches that the anti-wrap component is a wire (paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mitani (EP 2441588).
With regards to claim 4, the teachings of Mueller and Czaplewski are presented above. Mueller teaches that a single wire can be threaded through the channels of the rollers (paragraph 15). Mueller and Czaplewski fail to explicitly disclose that the anti-wrap component includes a spring.
Mitani discloses a lamination book binding machine that binds a plurality of half-fold printed sheets folded to have printed surfaces facing each other inside into a book by bonding them (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller and Czaplewski, where the anti-wrap component includes a spring (paragraphs 8 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-wrap component include a spring, as suggested by Mitani, in Mueller’s laminator. The rationale being that, as stated by Mitani, it adjusts the tension of the anti-wrap wire (paragraph 8) which would allow the wire to flexible move with the rotation of the roller such that the wire are less likely slow down or impede the roller.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toki et al (JP 2013095117).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Mueller and Czaplewski are presented above. Mueller and Czaplewski fail to explicitly disclose that the laminator comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed.
Toki discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, that comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed (paragraphs 30, 31 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed, as suggested by Toki, in Mueller’s laminator modified by Czaplewski. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that a controller would allow an operator to control technical aspects of the laminator, the thickness sensor would allow the operator to monitor the thickness of the material processed to avoid producing a material that is too thick or too thin, and the display would allow the information detected by the sensor to be viewed by an operator.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Mueller and Czaplewski are presented above. Mueller discloses that the laminator comprises a first feed roller and a second feed roller and a heat source that heats a lamination pouch as it is compressed between rollers and activates the adhesive (paragraph 14). Mueller and Czaplewski fail to disclose that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud.
Velazquez discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, where Velazquez discloses that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud (paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first feed roller and second feed roller be positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud in Mueller’s laminator, as suggested by Velazquez. The rationale being that, as stated by Velazquez, it protects the user from accidental contact with the heating elements (paragraph 89).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) and Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222).
With regards to claim 8, Mueller teaches a laminator (Abstract) including rollers for moving material, the rollers including a first roller and a second roller, each roller having circumferential channels, a first anti-wrap component positioned in a channel of the first roller and a second anti-wrap component positioned in the second channel (paragraphs 6 and 14).
Mueller fail to explicitly disclose that the first and second channel are self-healing.
Czaplewski discloses a self-healing thermal interface material includes a reactive silicone-based material and a thermally conductive filler material (Abstract), used in the same field of endeavor as Mueller (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used self-healing channels in Mueller’s laminator. The rationale being that, as stated by Czaplewski, the self-healing channels avoids cracking or voiding from occurring (paragraph 39).
Mueller discloses that the laminator comprises a first feed roller and a second feed roller and a heat source that heats a lamination pouch as it is compressed between rollers and activates the adhesive (paragraph 14). Mueller and Czaplewski fail to disclose that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud.
Velazquez discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, where Velazquez discloses that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud (paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first feed roller and second feed roller be positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud in Mueller’s laminator, as suggested by Velazquez. The rationale being that, as stated by Velazquez, it protects the user from accidental contact with the heating elements (paragraph 89).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Additionally, Mueller teaches that the heating roller channels have a width, the anti-wrap have a diameter and the width of the channels are less than the diameter of the wires (as seen in Figure 3A).
With regards to claim 11, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Additionally, Mueller teaches that the heating roller channels have a depth and the anti-wrap wires have a diameter, where the depth of the channels is between 2 and 4 times the diameter of the wire (as seen in Figure 3A).
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Additionally, Velazquez teaches that the first feed roller, second feed roller, first heating roller and second heating roller being positioned within a heating core formed between the first heat shroud and second heat shroud (as seen in Figure 21, paragraph 89).
With regards to claim 13, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Additionally, Mueller teaches that the channels of the first heating roller not aligning with the channels of the second heating roller and the channels of the first feed roller not aligning with the channels of the second feed roller (paragraph 18).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) and Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mitani (EP 2441588).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Mueller teaches that a single wire can be threaded through the channels of the rollers (paragraph 15). Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez fail to explicitly disclose that the anti-wrap component includes a spring.
Mitani discloses a lamination book binding machine that binds a plurality of half-fold printed sheets folded to have printed surfaces facing each other inside into a book by bonding them (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez, where the anti-wrap component includes a spring (paragraphs 8 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-wrap component include a spring, as suggested by Mitani, in Mueller’s laminator. The rationale being that, as stated by Mitani, it adjusts the tension of the anti-wrap wire (paragraph 8) which would allow the wire to flexible move with the rotation of the roller such that the wire are less likely slow down or impede the roller.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660) and Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Toki et al (JP 2013095117).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez are presented above. Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez fail to explicitly disclose that the laminator comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed.
Toki discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, that comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed (paragraphs 30, 31 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed, as suggested by Toki, in Mueller’s laminator modified by Czaplewski and Velazquez. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that a controller would allow an operator to control technical aspects of the laminator, the thickness sensor would allow the operator to monitor the thickness of the material processed to avoid producing a material that is too thick or too thin, and the display would allow the information detected by the sensor to be viewed by an operator.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222).
With regards to claim 16, Mueller teaches a laminator (Abstract) including rollers for moving material, the rollers including a first roller and a second roller, each roller having circumferential channels, a first anti-wrap component positioned in a channel of the first roller and a second anti-wrap component positioned in the second channel (paragraphs 6 and 14).
Mueller discloses that the laminator comprises a first feed roller and a second feed roller and a heat source that heats a lamination pouch as it is compressed between rollers and activates the adhesive (paragraph 14). Mueller fails to disclose that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud.
Velazquez discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, where Velazquez discloses that the first feed roller and second feed roller are positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud (paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first feed roller and second feed roller be positioned within a heat core formed between a first heat shroud and a second heat shroud in Mueller’s laminator, as suggested by Velazquez. The rationale being that, as stated by Velazquez, it protects the user from accidental contact with the heating elements (paragraph 89).
With regards to claim 20, the teachings of Mueller and Velazquez are presented above. Additionally Mueller teaches that the pair of input rollers and pair of exit rollers, each input and exit roller including a plurality of channels perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the channels of the exit rollers not being in alignment with each other (as seen in Figure 3A).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mitani (EP 2441588).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Mueller and Velazquez are presented above. Mueller teaches that a single wire can be threaded through the channels of the rollers (paragraph 15). Mueller and Velazquez fail to explicitly disclose that the anti-wrap component includes a spring.
Mitani discloses a lamination book binding machine that binds a plurality of half-fold printed sheets folded to have printed surfaces facing each other inside into a book by bonding them (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, Czaplewski and Velazquez, where the anti-wrap component includes a spring (paragraphs 8 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anti-wrap component include a spring, as suggested by Mitani, in Mueller’s laminator. The rationale being that, as stated by Mitani, it adjusts the tension of the anti-wrap wire (paragraph 8) which would allow the wire to flexible move with the rotation of the roller such that the wire are less likely slow down or impede the roller.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Toki et al (JP 2013095117).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Mueller and Velazquez are presented above. Mueller and Velazquez fail to explicitly disclose that the laminator comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed.
Toki discloses a laminator (Abstract), in the same field of endeavor as Mueller, that comprises a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed (paragraphs 30, 31 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a display for communicating a status of the laminator to an operator, a thickness sensor to sense the thickness of material processed by the laminator, a controller in communication with the thickness sensor and the display, the display providing the operator information regarding the thickness of the material processed, as suggested by Toki, in Mueller’s laminator modified by Velazquez. The rationale being that one of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that a controller would allow an operator to control technical aspects of the laminator, the thickness sensor would allow the operator to monitor the thickness of the material processed to avoid producing a material that is too thick or too thin, and the display would allow the information detected by the sensor to be viewed by an operator.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller et al (US 2014/0150977) in view of Velazquez et al (US 2002/0179222) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Czaplewski et al (US 2018/0057660).
With regards to claim 19, the teachings of Mueller and Velazquez are presented above. Mueller teaches that the channels closing around the anti-wrap components when the pair of heating rollers are compressed against each other (as seen in Figure 3A). Mueller and Velazquez fail to explicitly disclose that the heating rollers include a silicone outer layer.
Czaplewski discloses a self-healing thermal interface material includes a reactive silicone-based material and a thermally conductive filler material (Abstract), used in the same field of endeavor as Mueller and Velazquez (paragraph 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a silicone outer layer, as suggested by Czaplewski, in Mueller’s laminator as modified by Velazquez. The rationale being that, as stated by Czaplewski, the material avoids cracking or voiding from occurring (paragraph 39).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746