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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/25/2024 has been being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, “drooping prevention mechanisms for preventing” in claims 1-5 is being interpreted to cover the structures and equivalents described in paragraphs 0020-0022; “movement restraint mechanism for restraining” in claims 2-3 is being interpreted to cover the structures and equivalents described in paragraphs 0049-0051; and “carrier film deformation mechanism for deforming” in claim 4 is being interpreted to cover the structures and equivalents described in paragraph 0056.
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 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 2, 3 and 4 recites the limitation "wherein the drooping prevention mechanism is a movement restraint mechanism" in claims 2 and 3 and "wherein the drooping prevention mechanism is a carrier film deformation mechanism" in claim 4. It is unclear which drooping prevention mechanism is being referred to as claim 1 from which claims 2, 3 and 4 depend has established there is more than one drooping prevention mechanism (i.e., claim 1, line 6 “drooping prevention mechanisms”). For examination purposes, the limitations are read as “wherein the drooping prevention mechanisms are movement restraint mechanisms” in claims 2 and 3; and “wherein the drooping prevention mechanisms are carrier film deformation mechanisms” in claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "with respect to " in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as no molding position has been established in the claim to warrant the use of “the molding position”. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “with respect to a molding position”.
Claim 5 furthers recites the limitation "drooping at a molding position" in line 16. It is unclear if said molding position is referring to the molding position referenced in line 12. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “drooping at the molding position”.
Claim 6 is rejected for dependence on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki (JP5193198B2, translation as provided).
Regarding claim 1, Okazaki teaches a laminate molding system (Figure 2; paragraph 0017) in which an article to be laminated-molded (laminate S; paragraph 0018) is carried into a laminating apparatus (100) from one side thereof (Figure 2; paragraph 0021, conveying direction (from right to left)) by using a carrier film (162), and after the article is laminated-molded in the laminating apparatus, the laminated-molded article is carried out of out the laminating apparatus from another side thereof (Figure 2, left side), wherein
drooping prevention mechanisms (152, 154 in Figure 2) for preventing the carrier film and the laminated-molded article from drooping (152, 154 squeeze and hold carrier film 162 in place; paragraph 0022) at a molding position of the laminating apparatus (between platens 110, 1120) are respectively provided at an outer-side nearby position on a carry-in side with respect to the molding position of the laminating apparatus and an outer-side nearby position on the carry-out side with respect to the molding position of the laminating apparatus (Figure 2, 152, 154 are provided on right side (i.e., carry-in side) and left side (i.e., carry-out side) of the molding position).
Regarding claim 2, Okazaki further discloses the drooping prevention mechanism is a movement restraint mechanism for restraining a movement of the carrier film and comprises a holding part configured to hold the carrier film (either part 152, 154 can be considered a holding part of a movement restraint mechanism).
Regarding claim 5, Okazami teaches a laminating molding method in which an article to be laminated-molded is (laminate S; paragraph 0018), by using a carrier film (162 in Figure 2), carried into a laminating apparatus (100) from one side thereof (right side of Figure 2), and after the article is laminated-molded in the laminating apparatus, the laminated-molded article is carrying out of out the laminating apparatus from another side thereof (left side of Figure 2), wherein
after a movement of the carrier film is restrained by operating drooping prevention mechanisms (152, 154 in Figure 2; paragraph 0022, squeeze and hold carrier film 162 in place), the article to be laminated-molded is laminated-molded by forming a vacuum chamber of the laminating apparatus (vacuum vessel 150; paragraphs 0020-0022) or by using the laminating apparatus, the drooping prevention mechanisms being respectively provided at an outer-side nearby position on a carry-in side with respect to the [a] molding position of the laminating apparatus and an outer-side nearby position on the carry-out side with respect to the molding position of the laminating apparatus (Figure 2, 152, 154 are provided on right side (i.e., carry-in side) and left side (i.e., carry-out side) of the molding position), and configured to prevent the carrier film and the laminated-molded article from drooping at a [the] molding position of the laminating apparatus (Figure 2; paragraph 0022, 52, 154 squeeze and hold carrier film 162 in place).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki, in view of Fujisawa (WO2014192456A1, translation provided).
Regarding claim 3, Okazaki further discloses the drooping prevention mechanism is a movement restraint mechanism for restraining a movement of the carrier film (either part 152, 154 can be considered a movement restraint mechanism) and a holding part configured to hold the carrier film (either part 152, 154 can be considered a holding part of movement restraint mechanism), but does not disclose said movement restraint mechanism comprises an adsorption part configured to adsorb the carrier film.
Fujisawa teaches a laminate molding system (Figures 3-4; pages 3-4, 68, resin R may be a film-shaped resin, or may be a stack of film-shaped resins), comprising movement restraint mechanisms configured to restrain and hold (clampers 35) a carrier film (film F) in place while an article is being laminate-molded (workpiece W). Further, the movement restraint mechanisms mechanism comprise an adsorption part configured to adsorb the carrier film (54; page 21, clamper 35 is also formed with an air passage 54 that leads from the upper surface of the lower die clamper 35 to the outside of the die. This air passage 54 is connected to a suction section 55… film F is sucked and held by the suction portion 55 via the air passage 54 onto the clamp surface of the lower die clamper 35 page 26, film F may be held by suction). Hence, the use of an adsorption part to restrain a carrier film in known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute the adsorption part of Fujisawa for the holding part of Okazaki and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to utilize an adsorption part, as disclosed by Fujisawa, to prevent damage to the carrier film (i.e., holding part would require more force to retain/squeeze the carrier film). Further, as both Okazaki and Fujisawa and relate to systems for manufacturing laminated circuit boards (paragraphs 0017, 0024 of Okazaki; page 16 of Fujisawa) utilizing vacuum/suction, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the substitution.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki.
Regarding claim 4, Okazaki teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the drooping prevention mechanism is a carrier film deformation mechanism for deforming the carrier film and comprises a deformation mechanism part configured to deform a cross-sectional shape of the carrier film. However, as disclosed by Okazaki, the drooping prevention mechanism (152, 154) squeezes and holds the carrier film (162) therebetween (paragraph 0022). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art said a cross-sectional shape between the drooping prevention mechanism would deform due to being squeezed therebetween.
Regarding claim 6, Okazaki teaches all the elements of claim 5, but does not disclose a weight of each laminated-molded article is 500 g to 8 kg. However, Okazaki discloses the laminated-molded article is a multilayer board with copper foil formed on one or both sides (i.e., printed circuit board) (paragraphs 0017, 0024, fine and complex circuit patterns formed by etching the copper foil with resin, giving the manufactured laminated board extremely stable characteristics; 0031, such as a process of forming wiring on the copper foil on the surface), which is similar to the laminated-molded article of the instant application (paragraph 0039 of the published application).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In the case, the laminated-molded article of Okazaki is substantially similar to that as claimed, hence, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, laminated-molded article has substantially the same weight. Further, as Okazaki discloses the drooping prevention mechanism squeezes and holds the carrier film therebetween (paragraph 0022), it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to minimize the weight of the laminated-molded article to mitigate strain on the carrier film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa (US 6,041,840 A) discloses a laminate molding system, comprising: holding mechanisms on the sides of a laminating apparatus having suction lines therein (i.e., adsorption part).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 12/16/2025