DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 7 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 5 recites the limitations “the frame material” and “the laminated material” in 5(a) Lines 15-16 of Page 2 of the claims. The preceding claims introduce a first and second frame and a first and second laminated material. Thus “the frame” and “the laminated material” creates ambiguity. Clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second laminated material" in Line 13 of Page 3 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (EP 3823068 A1 -Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Yanagisawa" in view of Nedblake et al. (US 20070039684 A1), hereinafter "Nedblake". Yanagisawa and Nedblake et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely roll material processing.
In regard to Claims 1-3, Yanagisawa et al. discloses a method for producing a membrane assembly as roll material, comprising: providing a first laminated material (9a) as roll material comprising a first frame material (92a) and a protective film (91a) (Yanagisawa, [63-66, 204], Figure 6), wherein contour cuts (C9a) which sever the first frame material are made into the first frame material from a side of the laminated material opposite the protective film (Yanagisawa, [72-73]), with formation of punching residues (Cut corresponding regions A91 together with corresponding portions of cover film 93) and wherein the contour cuts are made without severing the protective film (Yanagisawa, [75]).
Yanagisawa et al. also discloses constructing the membrane assembly as roll material, wherein membrane blanks (85) are laminated with the first frame material, wherein the first laminated material is transferred directly onto a vacuum transport device (Yanagisawa, [61, 78-79, 140, 197]), wherein, during or after transfer of the first laminated material onto the vacuum transport device (152, 153, 632), the protective film with the punching residues is delaminated from the first frame material (Yanagisawa, [209]), and before leaving the vacuum transport device, the membrane assembly is laminated with a closed backing sheet (81) (Yanagisawa, [53, 61, Figure 17]).
While Yanagisawa discloses the method steps of delamination of the protective film after transfer to the vacuum transport device and the step of lamination of the closed backing sheet, it is performed downstream of that vacuum same transport device. However, the skilled artisan would be completely capable of envisage of the lamination of the closed backing sheet being performed on the same vacuum transport device that the delamination took place before or during transfer as evidenced by Nedblake et al. which discloses a method of transferring a first frame material (18), protective film (20) placed on a vacuum transport device (26) wherein the suction engages the protective film and assists in delaminating the film while on the vacuum transport device then the method comprises laminating the material while still on the vacuum transport device (Nedblake, Abstract, [0025-0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the lamination of the closed backing sheet disclosed in Yanagisawa on the same vacuum transport device as delamination took place as doing so would be an obvious variation to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 4, Yanagisawa in view of Nedblake et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 1. Yanagisawa et al. also discloses wherein the method further comprises: providing a second web-like laminated material (b2) comprising a second frame material (92b) and the backing sheet (91b), and placing the second laminated material on the membrane assembly comprising the first frame material and the membrane blanks, wherein the backing sheet is arranged on a side facing away from the first frame material (Yanagisawa, [44, 168]).
In regard to Claim 5, Yanagisawa in view of Nedblake et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 4. Yanagisawa et al. also discloses wherein the provision of the second laminated material comprises making contour cuts into the second frame material, which contour cuts sever the second frame material, wherein (a) in the second laminated material comprising the second frame material and the backing sheet contour cuts which sever the frame material are made into the second frame material from a side of the laminated material opposite the backing sheet, with formation of punching residues, and wherein the contour cuts are made without severing the backing sheet (Yanagisawa, [171-172, 176-179]).
In regard to Claim 8, Yanagisawa in view of Nedblake et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 4. Yanagisawa et al. also discloses wherein the membrane assembly comprising the first frame material, the membrane blanks and the second frame material is fixed by activation of an adhesive layer provided on the first frame material and/or on the second frame material (Yanagisawa, [198-201, 208, 210]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagisawa et al. (EP 3823068 A1 -Machine Translation referenced for citations), hereinafter "Yanagisawa" in view of Nedblake et al. (US 20070039684 A1), hereinafter "Nedblake" as applied to claim 1 above in view of Leeratanaphanit et al. (US 20240372117 A1), hereinafter "Leeratanaphanit". Yanagisawa, Nedblake and Leeratanaphanit et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely roll material processing.
In regard to Claim 6, Yanagisawa in view of Nedblake et al. disclose the the method as claimed in claim 1. Yanagisawa et al. also discloses wherein the method further comprises: providing a second frame material, and placing the second frame material on the membrane assembly comprising the first frame material and the membrane blanks (Yanagisawa, [171-172, 196-197]).
While Yanagisawa discloses a method step of laminating the backing sheet it is performed before placing the second frame. However, the skilled artisan could easily envisage alternatively laminating the backing sheet after placing the second frame material as taught in Leeratanaphanit which discloses a method step of providing a second frame material, and placing the second frame material on the membrane assembly wherein, after the second frame material has been placed, lamination with the backing sheet is effected (Leeratanaphanit, Figure 2, Module 3-4 and 6a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the method steps of placing the second frame and laminating the backing sheet disclosed in Yanagisawa in the order taught in Leeratanaphanit as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 7, Yanagisawa in view of Nedblake et al. disclose the method as claimed in claim 6. Yanagisawa et al. also discloses wherein the membrane assembly comprising the first frame material, the membrane blanks and the second frame material is fixed by activation of an adhesive layer provided on the first frame material and/or on the second frame material (Yanagisawa, [198-201, 208, 210]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights