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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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 limitation(s) is/are: a lamination system (300) in claims 1 and 4, and a cleaning system in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the cleaning system comprises a brush roller or air nozzle and that the lamination system includes conveyor roller and/or belts, the cleaning system, one or more web feeding rollers, and pressure rollers.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant uses passive language throughout the claims. For example, claim 1 recites the steps “a top layer web is provided” in line 7 and “the building board core is fed” in line 13. This passive language can create ambiguity as to whether such steps are actively performed as part of the method. Examiner notes that the list above is exemplary and not exhaustive. Applicant is encouraged to review all of the claims for passive language and to use active language where possible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the adhesive bond” in lines 24-25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “peeling off the adhesive layer (14).”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the predefined setpoint value (F1SOLL)” in lines 26-27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “the predefined peel-off force SOLL)” consistent with previous recitations in the claim. Examiner notes that the same recitation is present in lines 30-31. All references to the value (F1SOLL ) should be consistent throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" in line 28 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, such limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations surrounding the peel-off force and control thereof are recited in a contradictory and unclear manner which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the peel-off film (16) is peeled off the adhesive layer (14) with a predefined peel-off force (F1SOLL).” The claims goes on to recite the limitations “a sensor measures an actual value (F1IST) of the peel-off force acting on the adhesive bond between the wear layer (15) and the peel-off film” and comparing the predefined peel-off force (F1SOLL) with the actual value (F1IST) and correcting any deviation therebetween. As the claim is written, the predefined peel-off force (F1SOLL) is not merely a preselected setpoint used for process control. The peeling step is recited as being performed specifically at the predefined peel-off force (F1SOLL). Therefore if the peeling step is performed at some other actual force (F1IST), then the peeling step cannot be satisfied as written. It is also unclear why the two forces (F1SOLL,F1IST) which are directly compared are described as acting on different portions of the top layer web, with the predefined peel-off force (F1SOLL) peeling the wear layer off of the adhesive layer while the actual peel-off force (F1IST) acts on an adhesive bond between the wear layer and the peel-off film. Since the two forces are supposed to be equivalent and directly compared, the parts on which they act should also be recited consistently. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as requiring the steps of peeling the peel-off film off the adhesive layer with a peel-off force, measuring the peel-off force with a sensor, comparing the peel-off force with a predefined setpoint value, and correcting and deviation between the peel-off force and the predefined setpoint value.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the wear layer (15) is applied on the top side (11) and on the bottom side (12) of the building board core” is unclear because such a step requires two discrete wear layers, while only a single wear layer is claimed. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as including first and second wear layers, with the first wear layer being applied on the top side and the second wear layer being applied on the bottom side.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, such limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the steps” in line 3. It is unclear which steps are being referred to in this limitation. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as only reciting two wear layers which are on the top and bottom of the building board core.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the desired value” in lines 2-3. Claim 3 also recites the limitations “the drive torque (M1),” “the drive torque (M2),” “and “the drive torque (M3)” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting various torque values which may be adjusted for actively controlling the peeling force when the force deviates from a desired value.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "preferably" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes, such limitations have not been given patentable weight.
Claim 4 recites “a control system” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same component as the controller recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as referring to the same controller.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the predefined peel-off force is set on the basis of preset values stored in a data memory of the lamination system.” Since the setting of the force is recited in a passive manner, it is ambiguous as to whether a setting step is positively recited as part of the method and needs to be performed to meet the claim. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the peel-off force (F1SOLL) is kept constant by means of a control circuit.” It is unclear how the peel-off force (F1SOLL) is kept constant by a controller, since such a force appears to be a desired setpoint which is predetermined and constant. It is also unclear how the peeling force is kept constant (i.e. doesn’t change) when claim 1 requires specifically that the force be actively changed based on a sensed value. It is also unclear whether the “control circuit” of claim 5 is the same as the controller of claim 1 or some new and different control mechanism. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as using the controller of claim 1 to keep an applied peeling force equal to a setpoint value. Examiner notes that this control step appears to be identical to the control step already recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites a cleaning step which is performed “before gluing.” This is unclear because no gluing step is present in the method. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as requiring a step of cleaning the top and/or bottom side(s) of the building board core. The claim is not considered to positively recite any gluing step, and the timing of the cleaning step relative to any such gluing step is therefore not given patentable weight.
Claim 7 recites cores which are laminated “on their top side (11) and/or on their bottom side (12) with the wear layer (15).” As detailed above with respect to claim 2, it is unclear how a single wear layer (15) can be applied to both top and bottom sides of a core. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as requiring two wear layers when both the top and bottom sides are laminated.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the wear layer (15) is a self-adhesive wear layer” is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 1 positively recites an adhesive layer which is present on the wear layer, it is unclear whether the recitation of a self-adhesive wear layer still includes such a layer. For examination purposes, this limitation has not been given patentable weight, and the wear layer is considered to have an adhesive layer thereon consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the wear layer (15) is a self-adhesive wear layer” is unclear and indefinite for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claim 7 and has been interpreted in the same manner consistent with claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “a pressure roller (20) which is flexible” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same pressure roller in claim 1 or a different pressure roller. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting the same pressure roller as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the wear layer (15) is a self-adhesive wear layer” is unclear and indefinite for the same reasons detailed above with respect to claim 7 and has been interpreted in the same manner consistent with claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “before gluing.” This is unclear because no gluing step is present in the method. Similarly, the limitation “the glued state” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. The claim is not considered to positively recite any gluing step, and any references to glue are not given patentable weight.
Claim 9 recites “a control circuit” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same component as the controller recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as referring to the same controller.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the alignment” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as reciting “an alignment.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the pressure force…is kept constant at a predefined pressure value or a predefine pressure value range” by a control loop. The phrase “kept constant” is unclear and indefinite because the pressing force is actively controlled (i.e. changed) by the control loop to remain at the predefined pressure value or range. Since the active control described by the claim requires changing the pressing force when such a force deviates from a predefined value or range, describing the pressure force as being “kept constant” is unclear and inconsistent with the manner in which such a force is controlled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746