DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/19/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15, 17, 18, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 21, line 4 after “coating” insert - - one side of - - for consistency with respect to “the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet” in line 6; and
similarly, in claim 12, line 4 after “coating” insert - - one side of - - for consistency with respect to “the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet” in claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11, 16, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the base layer” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the base layer” and insert therein - - the bulk layer - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the elastic material” in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the elastic material” and insert therein - - the elastomeric material - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Postoaca et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0157886).
Regarding claim 21, Postoaca discloses a method for lamination of a barrier film or sheet (23) to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material (21), the bulk layer being provided with going-through holes (Paragraph 0022), the method comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): coating one side of the barrier film or sheet and one side of the bulk layer with a wet adhesive (molten, considered wet as in a liquid form or state, thermoplastic 25), feeding the coated barrier film or sheet to a nip formed between a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41 wherein the rollers form a nip and a support for the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer upon entering and through the nip) such that the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet is in contact with the support roller, feeding the coated bulk layer to the nip such that the bulk layer is in contact with the nip roller, and feeding the coated bulk layer and the coated barrier film or sheet through the nip, thereby allowing the bulk layer to adhere to the barrier film or sheet by the adhesive (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0022 and 0034-0038).
As to the limitations in claim 21 of “coating the barrier film or sheet with a wet adhesive, feeding the coated barrier film or sheet to a nip formed between a nip roller and a support roller”, Postoaca teaches coating one side of the barrier film or sheet and one side of the bulk layer (prior to the entrance of the nip by coating one side of the bulk layer first and then coating one side of the barrier film or sheet as appears depicted in Figure 1) with a wet adhesive (molten, considered wet as in a liquid form or state, thermoplastic) and feeding the coated barrier film or sheet and the coated bulk layer to and through the nip formed between the nip roller and the support roller. In the event it is somehow considered Postoaca does not necessarily anticipate the limitations the following rejection is made wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the one side of the barrier film or sheet as taught by Postoaca with the wet adhesive (first) and then coat the one side of the bulk layer and feed the coated barrier film or sheet and the coated bulk layer to and through the nip formed between the nip roller and the support roller as selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients”).
As to the limitation in claim 21 of “wherein the surface material of the nip roller is softer than the surface material of the support roller”, Postoaca teaches the surface material of the nip roller is elastic and the surface material of the support roller is steel (Paragraph 0034) and considered the surface material of the nip roller, elastic, is softer than the surface material of the support roller, steel, (including as is the same in the instant invention) or alternatively (in the event the limitation is somehow not considered not necessarily anticipated) wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surface material of the nip roller taught by Postoaca is softer than the surface material of the support roller wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand elastic to be softer than steel.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postoaca in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0314580).
Regarding claim 1, Postoaca discloses a wet lamination station configured to laminate a first material or article worked upon (23 or 21) to a second material or article worked upon (21 or 23), the wet lamination station comprising: a coating unit (24) configured to coat the first material or article worked upon and the second material or article worked upon with a third material or article worked upon (25), a lamination unit comprising a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41) between which is defined a nip, a first material or article worked upon feeding unit (22 or 20) configured to continuously provide the first material or article worked upon through the lamination unit, and a second material or article worked upon feeding unit (20 or22) configured to continuously provide the second material or article worked upon through the lamination unit (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0022 and 0034-0038).
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “actuation means adapted to press the nip roller in the direction of the support roller or configured to press the support roller in the direction of the nip roller, adjusting means for setting a distance between the support roller and the nip roller” and claim 5, Postoaca does not expressly teach how the distance between the rollers is set to define the nip. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the distance between rollers (50a, 50b) in a laminating nip is adjustable by actuation means (air cylinder 58 and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of an actuator) configured to press one roller (50b) in the direction of the other roller (50a) and adjusting means (wedge stoppers 52a, 52b and/or screws 54a, 54b and/or bearing portion 57 and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of an actuator or any conventional means for moving the rollers relative each other) for setting the distance between the rollers (and including wherein (regarding claim 5) one of the rollers (roller 50b) is adjustably arranged in a support structure (structure comprising guide rails 56 as shown in Figure 5), the adjusting means comprising a bearing portion (57) connecting to at least one linear actuator (58) of the actuation means, each linear actuator being connected to a movable adjusting member (bearing portion 57 and/or wedge stoppers 52a, 52b) arranged to engage the roller for adjusting the position of the roller relative the support structure (Figure 5)) for appropriately determining the distance depending on the properties of the adhesive, the materials laminated, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate as taught by Sato (Paragraphs 0096 and 0113 and see further Figures 3 and 5 and Paragraphs 0051, 0052, 0058, 0082-0093, 0096, 0105, and 0113). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Postoaca actuation means adapted to press the nip roller in the direction of the support roller or configured to press the support roller in the direction of the nip roller and adjusting means for setting the distance between the support roller and the nip roller for appropriately determining the distance between the rollers to define the nip in dependence on the properties of the adhesive/the third material or article worked upon, the materials laminated/the materials or articles worked upon, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate as taught by Sato.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller being an elastomeric material; and the elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA so that the elastomeric material in combination with the adjusting means reduces a risk that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer” and claim 2, Postoaca teaches the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller is elastic. Postoaca further teaches wherein the surface material is elastic the hardness is 50 to 100 Shore A to provide a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensate for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller and including wherein one of the materials or articles worked upon includes going-through holes (Paragraphs 0037-0038). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of rollers that define a laminating nip wherein one has an elastic surface the roller is made of rubber as evidenced by Sato (Paragraph 0105). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller taught by Postoaca is formed of an elastomeric material of rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato and the elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA (and regarding claim 2 at least 92 ShA) such as 100 ShA as expressly disclosed by Postoaca and including wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) and including so that the elastomeric material in combination with the adjusting means taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato provide a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensate for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller and including wherein one of the materials or articles worked upon includes going-through holes as taught by Postoaca.
As to the limitations in claim 1 of “a barrier film or sheet to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, said bulk layer being provided with going-through holes”, “a wet adhesive”, and “reduces a risk that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer”, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. These limitations are directed to the materials or articles worked upon by the apparatus and/or functional limitations. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). The wet lamination station taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is configured for “a barrier film or sheet to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, said bulk layer being provided with going-through holes”, “a wet adhesive”, and “reduces a risk that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer” wherein as the first material or article worked upon is a barrier film or sheet, as the second material or article worked upon is a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with going-through holes, and as the third material or article worked upon is a wet adhesive so that the elastomeric material (having a Shore hardness such as 100 ShA) in combination with the adjusting means taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato reduces a risk (in a like manner as in the instant invention reduces a risk) that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer/bulk layer.
Regarding claim 3, Postoaca teaches a drive unit (motor) configured to drive rotation of the support roller (Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 9, the actuation means taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato is adapted to press the nip roller in the direction of the support roller and against the materials or articles worked upon (e.g. against the bulk layer wherein a bulk layer is a material or article worked upon by the apparatus).
Regarding claim 10, the second material or articled worked upon feeding unit (20) and first material or article worked upon feeding unit (22) taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato are configured such that the second material or article worked upon (21) is in in contact with the nip roller (10) (such that the bulk layer is in contact with the nip roller wherein a bulk layer is used as the second material or article worked upon by the apparatus) and such that the first material or article worked upon (23) is in contact with the support roller (41) (such that the barrier film or sheet is in contact with the support roller wherein a barrier film or sheet is used as the first material or article worked upon by the apparatus).
Regarding claim 11, Postoaca teaches the support roller is a cooling roller (Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 16, Postoaca teaches the support roller has an outer circumferential surface made of a metal (steel) so that a surface area of the nip roller (elastic/rubber) is softer than a surface area of the support roller (steel) (including as is the same in the instant invention) or alternatively wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a surface area of the nip roller taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato is softer than a surface area of the support roller wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand rubber to be softer than steel.
Regarding claim 12, Postoaca discloses a method for lamination of a barrier film or sheet (23) to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material (21), the bulk layer being provided with going-through holes, the method comprising: coating one side of the barrier film or sheet and one side of the bulk layer with a wet adhesive (25), feeding the coated barrier film or sheet to a nip formed between a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41), feeding the bulk layer to the nip, and feeding the bulk layer and the coated barrier film or sheet through the nip, thereby adhering the bulk layer to the barrier film or sheet by the adhesive.
As to the limitations in claim 12 of “coating the barrier film or sheet with a wet adhesive, feeding the coated barrier film or sheet to a nip formed between a nip roller and a support roller”, Postoaca teaches coating one side of the barrier film or sheet and one side of the bulk layer (prior to the entrance of the nip by coating one side of the bulk layer first and then coating one side of the barrier film or sheet as appears depicted in Figure 1) with a wet adhesive (molten, considered wet as in a liquid form or state, thermoplastic) and feeding the coated barrier film or sheet and the coated bulk layer to and through the nip formed between the nip roller and the support roller. In the event it is somehow considered Postoaca does not necessarily teach the limitations the following rejection is made wherein it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the one side of the barrier film or sheet as taught by Postoaca with the wet adhesive (first) and then coat the one side of the bulk layer and feed the coated barrier film or sheet and the coated bulk layer to and through the nip formed between the nip roller and the support roller as selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients”).
As to the limitation in claim 12 of “the nip roller having an outer circumferential surface that is an elastomeric material”, Postoaca teaches the nip roller having an outer circumferential surface that is elastic. Sato is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the nip roller having an outer circumferential surface taught by Postoaca has an outer circumferential surface that is an elastomeric material of rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato.
As to the limitations in claim 12 of “adjusting a set distance between the support roller and the nip roller by taking into account the elastomeric material of the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller and/or a combined thickness of the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer” and claim 13, Postoaca does not expressly teach how the distance between the rollers is set to define the nip. Sato is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Postoaca adjusting a set distance between the support roller and the nip roller for appropriately determining the distance between the rollers to define the nip in dependence on the properties of the adhesive, the materials laminated, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate as taught by Sato and thus by taking into account (and including based on) a combined thickness of the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer and (as also based on) a Shore hardness (such as 100 ShA as suggested by Postoaca) of the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller provides a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensates for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller.
Regarding claim 14, the barrier film or sheet and bulk layer as taught by Postoaca are provided as continuous webs (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, the feeding of the coated barrier film or sheet (23) to the nip as taught by Postoaca is performed such that the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet is in contact with the support roller (41), and feeding the bulk layer (21) to the nip is performed such that the bulk layer is in contact with the nip roller (10) (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Postoaca discloses a wet lamination station configured to laminate a first material or article worked upon (23) to a second material or article worked upon (21), the wet lamination station comprising: a coating unit (24) configured to coat the first material or article worked upon and the second material or article worked upon with a third material or article worked upon (25) so that one side of the first material or article worked upon is a coated side of the first material or article worked upon that is coated with the third material or article worked upon and an opposite side of the first material or article worked upon is a non-coated side of the first material or article worked upon that is not coated with the third material or article worked upon, a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41) between which is defined a nip, a first material or article worked upon feeding unit (22) configured to continuously provide the first material or article worked upon to the nip, a second material or article worked upon feeding unit (20) configured to continuously provide the second material or article worked upon to the nip, and the coating unit, the second material or article worked upon feeding unit and the first material or article worked upon feeding unit being configured and arranged relative to one another and relative to the nip such that: i) the first material or article worked upon feeding unit feeds the first material or article worked upon to the nip with the non-coated side of the first material or article worked upon facing the support roller and the coated side of the first material or article worked upon facing one side of the second material or article worked upon; and ii) the second material or article worked upon feeding unit feeds the second material or article worked upon to the nip with the one side of the second material or article worked upon facing the coated side of the first material or article worked upon and the other side of the second material or article worked upon facing the nip roller.
As to the limitations in claim 19 of “actuation means configured to press the nip roller in the direction of the support roller or configured to press the support roller in the direction of the nip roller, adjusting means for setting a distance between the support roller and the nip roller”, Postoaca does not expressly teach how the distance between the rollers is set to define the nip. Sato is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Postoaca actuation means configured to press the nip roller in the direction of the support roller or configured to press the support roller in the direction of the nip roller and adjusting means for setting the distance between the support roller and the nip roller for appropriately determining the distance between the rollers to define the nip in dependence on the properties of the adhesive/the third material or article worked upon, the materials laminated/the materials or articles worked upon, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate as taught by Sato.
As to the limitations in claim 19 of “the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller being an elastomeric material; and the elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA so that the elastomeric material allows for sufficient pressure distribution in the nip while also providing a lower tendency of the elastic material filling the through holes in the bulk layer” and in claim 20 of “the support roller has an outer circumferential surface made of a metal so that a surface area of the nip roller is softer than a surface area of the support roller”, Postoaca teaches the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller is elastic. Postoaca further teaches wherein the surface material is elastic the hardness is 50 to 100 Shore A to provide a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensate for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller and including wherein one of the materials or articles worked upon includes going-through holes (Paragraphs 0037-0038). Postoaca teaches the support roller has an outer circumferential surface made of steel (metal). Sato is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller taught by Postoaca being an elastomeric material of rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato so that the surface material of the nip roller is softer than the surface material of the support roller wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand rubber to be softer than steel (including as is the same in the instant invention) and the elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA such as 100 ShA as expressly disclosed and including wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) and thereby including so that the elastomeric material having the Shore hardness providing a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensating for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller (in a like manner as in the instant invention) then allows for sufficient pressure distribution in the nip while also providing a lower tendency of the elastic/elastomeric material filling through holes such as in the second material or article worked upon.
As to the limitations in claim 19 of “a barrier film or sheet to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with through holes that pass through the bulk layer from one side of the bulk layer to an opposite side of the bulk layer” and “a wet adhesive”, claim 19 is directed to an apparatus. The wet lamination station taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and is configured for “a barrier film or sheet to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with through holes that pass through the bulk layer from one side of the bulk layer to an opposite side of the bulk layer” and “a wet adhesive” wherein as the first material or article worked upon is a barrier film or sheet, as the second material or article worked upon is a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with through holes that pass through the bulk layer from one side of the bulk layer to an opposite side of the bulk layer, and as the third material or article worked upon is a wet adhesive.
Regarding claim 21, Postoaca is described above in full detail.
As to the limitation in claim 21 of “wherein the surface material of the nip roller is softer than the surface material of the support roller”, Postoaca teaches the surface material of the nip roller is elastic and the surface material of the support roller is steel (Paragraph 0034) wherein in the event it is somehow considered Postoaca does not necessarily teach or make prima facie obvious the limitation as set forth above the following rejection is made wherein it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surface material of the nip roller taught by Postoaca is rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato so that the surface material of the nip roller is softer than the surface material of the support roller wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand rubber to be softer than steel (including as is the same in the instant invention).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postoaca and Sato as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 19-21 above, and further in view of Loen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,942,991).
Regarding claim 4, Postoaca as modified by Sato above teach the actuation means is an air cylinder wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art actuation means to press rollers in a nip includes air cylinder, hydraulic cylinders, etc. as evidenced by Loen (Column 5, lines 22-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the actuation means taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato is hydraulically operated as a simple substitution of one known means for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Loen.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postoaca and Sato as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 9-16, and 19-21 above, and further in view of Yax (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0003301).
Regarding claims 6-8, Postoaca as modified by Sato above teach the adjusting means sets the distance between the rollers as is appropriate depending on the properties of the materials or articles worked upon such as the adhesive, the materials laminated, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate (Paragraphs 0096 and 0113 of Sato). Sato does not expressly teach a controller and user interface along with the adjusting means to adjust the distance. It is well understood in adjusting the distance between rollers defining a nip to use a controller and user interface along with the adjusting means to set the distance between the rollers as taught by Yax (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0029, 0031-0033, 0043, and 0045) and including a controller (192) and a user interface (198), the controller being operatively connected to the user interface (Figure 4) and the adjusting means (166, 168 and see further Paragraph 0043), whereby the controller is configured to control the adjusting means to adjust the distance between the rollers based on user input received by the user interface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the wet lamination station taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato further include a controller and a user interface, the controller being operatively connected to the user interface and the adjusting means, whereby the controller is configured to control the adjusting means to adjust the distance between the support roller and the nip roller based on user input received by the user interface (and including regarding claim 7 wherein the user input comprises the defined combined thickness of the laminate/the materials or articles worked upon such as the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer wherein these are the materials or articles worked upon and regarding claim 8 the controller is configured to control the adjusting means to adjust the distance between the support roller and the nip roller such that the distance is smaller than the combined thickness of the materials or articles worked upon such as the bulk layer and the barrier film or sheet wherein these are the materials or articles worked upon wherein the defined combined thickness of the laminate is smaller than the combined thickness of the materials or articles worked upon and/or wherein the materials or articles worked upon have a combined thickness larger than the distance between the rollers) as is the conventional means to predictably adjust and set the distance between the rollers of the nip as evidenced by Yax and including automating a manual activity is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 and “III. AUTOMATING A MANUAL ACTIVITY”) .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-5, 9, and 12-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 fully encompass claims 1-5, 9, and 12-14 of the instant application and including the elastomeric material taught by claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA so that (regarding claim 1) the elastomeric material in combination with the adjusting means reduces a risk that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base/bulk layer and (regarding claims 12 and 13) adjusting a set distance between the support roller and the nip roller by taking into account and (as based on both) the elastomeric material of the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller including the Shore hardness of the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller (as at least 90 ShA and softer than the surface material of the support roller) and the combined thickness of the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 in view of Yax. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 fully encompass claims 6-8 of the instant application but for a specific teaching of a controller wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the wet lamination station taught by claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 further include a controller, the controller being operatively connected to the user interface and the adjusting means, whereby the controller is configured to control the adjusting means to adjust the distance between the support roller and the nip roller based on user input received by the user interface (and including regarding claim 7 wherein the user input comprises the combined thickness of the barrier film or sheet and the bulk layer such as in claim 6 and regarding claim 8 the controller is configured to control the adjusting means to adjust the distance between the support roller and the nip roller such that the distance is smaller than the combined thickness of the bulk layer and the barrier film or sheet such as in claim 7) as is the conventional means to predictably automatically adjust and set the distance between the rollers of the nip as evidenced by Yax.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 in view of Sato. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 fully encompass claim 16 of the instant application but for a specific teaching the support roller has an outer circumferential surface made of a metal wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the support roller taught by claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/683,416 has an outer circumferential surface made of a metal as is the conventional and predictable material for such a roller including in a nip with a roller having an outer circumferential surface made of an elastomeric material as evidenced by Sato (Paragraph 0105).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method for lamination of a barrier film or sheet to a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with going-through holes, as claimed and including wherein the barrier film or sheet possesses a thickness and the bulk layer possesses a thickness, the thickness of the barrier film or sheet and the thickness of the bulk layer together constituting a combined thickness, the adjusting of the set distance between the support roller and the nip roller including adjusting the set distance between the support roller and the nip roller so that the set distance is between 30%-70% of the combined thickness of the bulk layer and the barrier film or sheet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 12/19/2025 the previous 35 U.S.C. 112, 102, and 103 rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed on 8/19/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicants argue, “Specifically, Claim 1 is amended to recite that the elastomeric material has a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA so that the elastomeric material in combination with the adjusting means reduces a risk that the wet adhesive will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer.”.
Postoaca is applied to teach the amended limitations wherein Postoaca teaches the surface material is elastic having a hardness of 50 to 100 Shore A to provide a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensate for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller and including wherein one of the materials or articles worked upon includes going-through holes so that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the outer circumferential surface of the nip roller taught by Postoaca is formed of an elastomeric material of rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato and the elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA such as 100 ShA as expressly disclosed and including wherein in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) and including so that the elastomeric material in combination with the adjusting means taught by Postoaca as modified by Sato provide a homogenous pressure along the complete length of the roller and compensate for any irregularities on the pressing surface of the roller as taught by Postoaca thereby reduces a risk (in a like manner as in the instant invention reduces a risk) that the wet adhesive (as a third material or article worked upon) will pollute lamination equipment by way of the going-through holes in the base layer (as a first or second material or article worked upon).
Applicants further ague, “Importantly, and quite relevant to the analysis here, Sato is not at all concerned with a lamination unit for laminating a barrier film/sheet to a bulk layer having through holes.” and “But as explained above, Sato’s disclosure is directed to a specific problem that has no application, explained or otherwise, to the method disclosed in Öhman. Stated differently, persons of ordinary skill in the art, considering the particular methodology described in Öhman would not have viewed the disclosure in Sato, that is specifically concerned with laminating uneven rubber layers to a support, to be applicable to the disclosure in Öhman. Indeed, the disclosure in Öhman has nothing to do with rubber layers, let alone laminating together rubber layers that are uneven.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Sato is not limited to laminating uneven rubber layers to a support (support 14 and substrate 16 not particularly limited, see paragraphs 0040 and 0078), and Sato is applied as evidence of that well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art wherein the distance between rollers in a laminating nip (relevant to Postoaca similarly teaching a laminating nip between rollers and including wherein one roller having an outer circumferential surface that is an elastic material and the other roller having an outer circumferential surface made of a metal) is adjustable by actuation means configured to press one roller in the direction of the other roller and adjusting means for setting the distance between the rollers for appropriately determining the distance depending on the properties of the adhesive, the materials laminated, etc. including to define the thickness of the laminate.
Applicants further argue, “New independent Claim 21 is based on original independent Claim 12 and distinguishes over the method disclosed in Postoaca, considered alone or in combination with the disclosure in Sato, because that claimed method calls for feeding the coated barrier film or sheet to a nip formed between a nip roller and a support roller such that the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet is in contact with the support roller, with the surface material of the nip roller being softer than the surface material of the support roller, and feeding the bulk layer to the nip such that the bulk layer is in contact with the nip roller.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Postoaca teaches feeding the coated barrier film or sheet (23, 25) to a nip formed between a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41) such that the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet is in contact with the support roller, with the surface material of the nip roller being softer than the surface material of the support roller, and feeding the bulk layer (21) to the nip such that the bulk layer is in contact with the nip roller.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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 L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746