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 1-4, in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has added new claims 13-26, which depend on claim 1 and are included with the elected claims. Claims 5 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 gluing unit in claims 1 and 3, a gluing device in claims 1 and 14, a gluing control subsystem in claim 1, a baking unit in claims 1 and 3, a baking device in claim 1, a baking control subsystem in claim 1, a laminating unit in claims 1 and 4, a laminating device in claims 1, a laminating control subsystem in claim 1, a pressing unit in claims 1 and 4, a pressing device in claim 1, a pressing control subsystem in claim 1, an image acquisition unit in claim 1, an image acquisition device in claim 1, and a monitoring device in claims 1 and 26.
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 gluing unit and device comprise a first conveyor belt and a gluing roller, the baking unit and device comprise a second conveyor belt and a baking channel, the laminating unit and device comprise a third conveyor belt and a laminating roller, the pressing unit and device comprise a fourth conveyor belt and at least set of pressing rollers, and the image acquisition device and monitoring device comprise a camera. There is no recited structure in the instant specification for the instantly claimed control subsystems, which renders the claim scope indefinite when such subsystems are recited.
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).
Examiner notes that claims 15, 16, 22, and 24 recites specific structures for the gluing device, baking device, film laminating device, and pressing device, respectively. Therefore these limitations no longer meet prong (C) of the test above for interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and are interpreted to include only the recited structure in these claims.
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 1-4 and 13-26 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 a gluing control subsystem, a baking control subsystem, a laminating control subsystem, and a pressing control subsystem. Each of these limitations meets the three-prong analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use the generic and non-structural term “subsystem,” define each subsystem only by its function of issuing some type of control instruction, and do not recite any structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The claims are therefore interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However the instant specification lacks any description of any particular structures which form the subsystems or perform their functions. Therefore the scope of these limitations is unclear, and one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim. Claims 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22, and 24 also recite at least one of these subsystems, such recitations also being indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one production line includes a gluing unit, a laminating unit, a baking unit, a pressing unit, or an image acquisition unit.” Since the various units are listed in the alternative, only a single unit is required to meet the claim. The claim goes on to recite the central control processor is configured to make a determination based upon the image data set and gluing quality data, which are acquired by the image acquisition unit. In order for the central control processor to be configured as claimed, the image acquisition unit must be present in the claimed system. However the image acquisition unit is not required in the at least one production line unit since it is only one of a plurality of alternatives. Therefore the claim is unclear as to whether or not the image acquisition unit is required, or whether it is simply an optional alternative provided along with the other various units. For examination purposes, any automatic production system comprising at least one of a gluing unit, a laminating unit, a baking unit, a pressing unit, and an image acquisition unit, and a control processor which controls any such unit based on image data and analysis will be considered to meet the claim.
Claims 2-4 recite particular image data sets which require a corresponding unit to be present in the system. For example, claim 3 recites a baking image data set which is analyzed and used to control the baking unit. It is unclear whether this claim is attempting to positively recite the baking unit as part of the system, particularly because the baking unit is one of a list of alternatives in claim 1 and is therefore not necessarily required as part of the system to meet the claims. The scope of these claims is unclear because the central control processor is configured to perform operations based on data sets produced by production units which may not even be present within the system.
Similarly, claims 13, 16, 21, and 23 recite various instructions which require a corresponding unit to be present in the system. For example, claim 16 further limits the baking instruction. It is unclear whether this claim is attempting to positively recite the baking unit as part of the system, particularly because the baking unit is one of a list of alternatives in claim 1 and is therefore not necessarily required as part of the system to meet the claims. The scope of claims is unclear because the recited instructions are issued by subsystems with indefinite scope and because they are used to control production units which need not even be present within the system.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the smart baking channel” in line 2 and “the transfer speed” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 109016831 A).
Li teaches a laminating machine for applying a film to a surface of a material to be laminated, the machine comprising a heating roller (3), a pressure roller (6), an image acquisition unit which acquires images of a laminated product, and a central controller which extracts features of the images, analyzes the extracted features, and controls operation of the electric heater, pressure roller, and/or drive roller according to the analysis of the images (See [0013]-[0022]; [0035]-[0046]). The heating roller, pressure roller, image acquisition unit, and central controller read on the instantly claimed laminating unit, pressing unit, image acquisition unit, and central control processor, respectively. The extraction, analysis, and control operations performed by the central controller read on the instantly claimed steps of generating quality data based upon an image data set, determining a control parameter of the system based on the quality data, generating a control instruction based on the control parameter, and sending the control instruction to the production line unit to perform a production control.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one production line includes a gluing unit, a laminating unit, a baking unit, a pressing unit, or an image acquisition unit.” Since the various units are listed in the alternative, only a single unit is required to meet the claim. Li teaches at least the image acquisition unit, the laminating unit, and the pressing unit, as detailed above. Therefore the claim is fully met by the invention of Li.
Claims 2-4 and 13-26 further limit the various production units, data captured relative to the various production units, and/or instructions provided by the control subsystems of the various production units. Since all of the production units are provided in the alternative in claim 1, only a single production unit is required to meet the claim, as detailed above. Therefore the further limitations of claims 2-4 and 13-26 are not required to meet the claims because they further limit various production units which need not be present within the system to meet the claim.
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
Prosecution Insights