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 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postoaca et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0157886) in view of Sato et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0314580).
Regarding claim 9, Postoaca discloses a wet lamination station (Figure 1) configured for lamination of a first material or article worked upon (21) to a second material or article worked upon (23), the wet lamination station comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): 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 lamination unit comprising a nip roller (10) and a support roller (41 wherein the rollers form a nip and a support for the first material or article worked upon and the second material or article worked upon entering and through the nip) that together define a nip (26) located between the nip roller and the support roller, a first material or article worked upon feeding unit (20) configured to continuously provide the first material or article worked upon into the nip and through the lamination unit, a second material or article worked upon feeding unit (22) configured to continuously provide the second material or article worked upon into the nip and through the lamination unit, 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 nip 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 support roller (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0034-0038).
As to the limitations in claim 9 of “wherein the surface material of the nip roller is softer than the surface material of the support roller and has a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA” and claims 10 and 11, Postoaca teaches the surface material of the nip roller is elastic and the surface material of the support roller is steel (Paragraphs 0034 and 0038). 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 (Paragraph 0038). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of rollers that define a 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 made of an elastomeric material of rubber as is the conventional and predictable material for such an elastic roller as evidenced by Sato and further including the surface material of the nip roller (elastic/rubber) is softer than the surface material of the support roller (steel) 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 further the nip roller has a Shore hardness of at least 90 ShA (and regarding claim 11 at least 92 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).
As to the limitation in claim 9 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” and claims 14 and 15, 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 (regarding claim 14) 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) configured for adjusting the distance between the support roller and the nip roller (and including wherein (regarding claim 15) 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 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 configured for adjusting 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 9 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 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 9 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 claims 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 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 so that one side of the barrier film or sheet is a coated side of the barrier film or sheet that is coated with the wet adhesive and an opposite side of the barrier film or sheet is a non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet that is not coated with the wet adhesive” wherein as the first material or article worked upon (as 21) is a barrier film or sheet, as the second material or article worked upon (as 22) is a bulk layer of paper or paperboard or other cellulose-based material, the bulk layer being provided with going-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 (as 25) is a wet adhesive.
Regarding claim 12, Postoaca teaches a drive unit (motor) configured to drive the rotation of the support roller (Paragraph 0038).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Postoaca and Sato as applied to claims 9-12, 14, and 15 above, and further in view of Loen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,942,991).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims are allowed for the reasons set forth in paragraph 18 of the Office action mailed 8/19/2025.
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 rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed on 8/19/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully address above.
Applicants argue, “Though Claim 9 may not positively recite the bulk layer and barrier film/sheet, the laminator disclosed in Sato must, at a minimum, be configured in a way that would allow the different parts of the laminator to interact with a bulk layer and barrier film/sheet like that recited in Claim 9 in the manner recited in Claim 9. Specifically, Claim 9 says that the coating unit, the bulk layer feeding unit and the barrier film or sheet feeding unit are configured and arranged relative to one another and relative to the nip such that: i) the barrier film or sheet feeding unit feeds the barrier film or sheet to the nip with the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet facing the nip roller and the coated side of the barrier film or sheet facing the one side of the bulk layer; and ii) the bulk layer feeding unit feeds the bulk layer to the nip with the one side of the bulk layer facing the coated side of the barrier film or sheet and the other side of the bulk layer facing the support roller. Sato’s laminator does not include features configured and arranged relative to one another and relative to a nip between a nip roller and a support roller as claimed.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Postoaca is applied above to teach the amended limitations including wherein the coating unit, the second material or article worked upon/bulk layer feeding unit and the first material or article worked upon/barrier film or sheet feeding unit are configured and arranged relative to one another and relative to the nip such that: i) the barrier film or sheet feeding unit feeds the barrier film or sheet to the nip with the non-coated side of the barrier film or sheet facing the nip roller and the coated side of the barrier film or sheet facing the one side of the bulk layer; and ii) the bulk layer feeding unit feeds the bulk layer to the nip with the one side of the bulk layer facing the coated side of the barrier film or sheet and the other side of the bulk layer facing the support roller wherein as the first material or article worked upon (as 21) by the wet lamination station is a barrier film or sheet and as the second material or article worked upon (as 23) by the wet lamination station is a bulk layer.
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