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 without traverse of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 9/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 12 is 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 3 state “a predetermined length CORRESPONDING to the size of the target sheet.” This would appear to reflect the size of the sheet. However, Claim 6 recites this is the sum of unusable amount and the length of the sheet. If so, it is unclear what the “corresponding” length of Claim 3 represents.
In Claim 6, it is unclear if “a length based on a size of the target sheet” is the same a length of the sheet. Examiner assumes it is and Applicant should clarify the language.
Claim 9 states “a size of a sheet set as the sheet on which the image in formed by the image former.” This is unclear since “a sheet” would appear to simply “the sheet on which the image is formed by the image former. Since the image forming presumably does not change the sheet size, it is unclear how claim 9 different from “the remaining amount related information is information corresponding to the size of the sheet.” Examiner understands no difference and thus Applicant should simply the claim for clarity. Note although not indefinite, Applicant similar superfluously introduces “a target sheet” in Claim 2 when it is just “the sheet.” Thus, Claims 2 and 9 have the exact same scope except Claim 9 requires image forming, i.e. printing. Note switching the name of the sheet in claim 1 to target sheet in claims 2 and 3 is needlessly complicated and makes the claims harder to read, and although not necessarily indefinite, Examiner recommends simplify to maintain a single terms for the same element whenever possible.
Note similar superfluous text appears through the claims such as in Claim 1 where “remaining amount related information that is information corresponding…” wherein the underlined text is entirely superfluous since there is no need to label information as information. See also “length that is a length” in Claim 5, etc.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, “the sheet set” has no antecedent basis. Examiner assumes a sheet set is a stack of sheets from which the sheet is fed for laminating.
The other claims are indefinite as dependent on indefinite claims.
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 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagata et al. (WO2022/191219, wherein US2024/0326397 is used as an English translation and all citation are thereto).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagata et al. teaches a laminating system (See Abstract) comprising:
a laminator [8a],[8b] that performs a lamination process of overlaying a laminate film [5] on a sheet (See page 5, paragraphs [0069] and [0078]-[0079], wherein rollers [8a],[8b] laminate film [5] on sheet to be laminated);
a conveyor that conveys the sheet to the laminator (See page 5, paragraph [0072]-[0076], wherein feed rollers [14], separation roller [15] and conveyance rollers [16],[17] are part of a conveyor to convey the sheet to paper to be laminated to rollers [8a],[8b]); and
a hardware processor that obtains remaining amount related information that is information corresponding to a laminate film remaining amount, and changes the laminate film remaining amount in accordance with the obtained remaining amount related information (See page 2, paragraph [0029], page 7, paragraph [0112], page 8, paragraphs [0114]-[0118], wherein an RFID chip provides information about the remaining amount of film to a RFID reader and display, i.e. a hardware processor, and rewrites or changes information, such as the number of sheets remaining to be laminated as a factor of the laminate film remaining, based on this remaining amount information provided by the RFID tag to the reader).
Regarding Claims 2, Nagata et al. teaches the remaining value may considered according to a specified value, which is a specific length, such as the length of a sheet, and changes those numbers of sheets as a factor of film length (See page 8, paragraph [0117]) until this remaining film length is less than this specified length, such as a sheet, and then alert no more film remains (See page 8, paragraph [0119]).
Regarding Claim 4, Examiner submits the RFID tag is information about the film that sets information of the job such as temperature speed, and that allows the remaining amount (See page 8, paragraph [0114], [0116], and [0117]).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. as applied to Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 3, 5-7 and 10, Nagata et al. teaches the remaining value may considered according to a specified value, which is a specific length, such as the length of a sheet, and changes those numbers of sheets as a factor of film length (See page 8, paragraph [0117]) until this remaining film length is less than this specified length, such as a sheet, and then alert no more film remains (See page 8, paragraph [0119]). Note this specific value is a predetermined length longer than an unusable length from a roll core of the laminate film to a position at which the laminate contacts the sheet as in Claim 5, since the laminate film [5] is clearly rolled on a core and the specific value is defined as a length such as the of a sheet where any amount less than that length is unusable for lamination, i.e. moving into a position of contact.
Nagata further indicates if the lamination is continued past the threshold value, i.e. past a point where there is less film than a specified length such as a dimension capable of laminating a sheet (i.e. the sum of unusable plus a sheet length as in Claim 6, see page 8, paragraph [0119]), it is bad for the device and lamination fails (See page 2, paragraph [0018]). Although Nagata et al. does not explicitly indicate the alert is coupled with a response prevents/stops sheet feeding, this is at least obvious since there is no reason to feed the sheet when lamination cannot occur. Thus, it is likely implied, but it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention once the sheet length is less than the specified length for laminating and an alert occurs, that feeding of sheets for lamination should stop, such as by constraining further operation by the controller. Once lamination can no longer occur due to an expired film roll and an alert has occurred, it is undesirable and detrimental to continue sheet feeding and obvious to prevent such feeding until the lamination film is replaced, and thus ensuring the controller stops any such feeding is obvious to avoid damaging the device if the alert goes unnoticed.
Note for Claim 7, the entire roller system may be considered the conveyor and stopping the system from further feeding is thus stopping at the conveyor. For Claim 10, any of rollers [13],[14],[15] may be a sheet feeder as opposed to conveyer rollers [16],[17], which may represent the conveyor in this claim (See page 5, paragraphs [0072]-[0075]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2022/0289512).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Nagata et al. clear teaches the sheet to be laminated may be printed like business cards or menus, but does not teach the device itself prints. However, laminators that have the capability to pre-print in-line are well-known (See, for example Takahashi et al., Fig. 30, page 8, paragraphs [0137]-[0138]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement an image former such as a printed downstream of the laminating device. Doing so would have predictably allowed pull service forming of printed and laminated item without pre-printing at a remote location. Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Haraguchi et al. (US 2023/0001731).
Regarding Claims 11, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 10 as described above. As described, Nagata et al. tracks the numbers of sheets remaining as a function of the remaining film length and tracks this number for laminating sheets until a specified value, such as the sheet length, is equaled or exceed and the system creates an alert (See page 8, paragraph [0117] and [0119]). This implies the sheet size must be known to make this computation and nothing in Nagata et al. states the device can only accommodate a single sheet size and specifically gives A4 paper size as an example, suggesting size is not fixed (See page 8, paragraph [0117]), and further indicating different size sheets, such as business cards and menus require lamination (See page 1, paragraph [0002]). If different sizes are known and usable in the device, the system must need input size to calculate the sheets remaining based on film length or else the device would be constrained to only operate with one size sheet without ever being suitable for proper use with a different sheet size. Further, it is well-known in lamination devices to impart sheet size on a selected display to ensure lamination conditions are correctly structured by the controller for said size (See, for example, Haraguchi et al., page 8, paragraphs [0159]-[0160], teaching selecting sheet size, such as A4 sized paper, or selecting length and width, to adapt the device to laminate said size). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement such a sheet size selection on the display panel to inform the controller of the sheet size so it can properly calculate the film length remaining as a function of sheet size as taught therein. Doing so would have predictably allowed the device in Nagata et al. to function as taught therein for a variety of different size paper, such as business cards or menu, thus providing wider laminating capability while still tracking film length remaining as a function of sheets to be laminated.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Haraguchi et al. and Kikuchi (US 2017/0021603).
Regarding Claims 8-9 and 12-13, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 10 as described above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 11, Nagata et al. adjusts the remaining sheets to be laminated as a function of sheet size, at least rendering obvious having settings that input different sheet sizes to make this sheet size output as a function of the film length (See, for example, Haraguchi et al., page 8, paragraphs [0159]-[0160], and logic of claim 11 above). Nagata et al. doesn’t specifically teach different sheet feed trays or different conveyance distances. However, it is known in laminating devices to pull separate sized sheets from separate trays via a sheet feeder and then routing them, via different conveyance distances, to a lamination device, such as after pre-printing (See, for example, Kikuchi, Figs. 1-2, page 2, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], page 9, paragraphs [0234]-[0237], and page 11, paragraph [0304], teaching pulling different sized sheets [S] from different paper cassettes [40A],[40B], i.e. trays, via sheet feeders [40a],[40b] and conveying them along different conveyance distance as clearly shown through a printer [6] and into a lamination device [110], shown clearer in Fig. 2, for laminating with film [LF]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement multiple trays in the device of Nagata et al. Doing so would have predictably enabled lamination of different size via the input setting as described above without implementing a new supply. By selecting a size, the device, as described above, would change/set the conveyance distance by selecting the relevant tray and then adapt calculating film supply as a function of the sheet size in the tray. Note as above for Claim 8-9, pre-printing is obvious to impart the desired design on the laminated product.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nieda et al. (US 2013/0100222).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. As described above, Nagata et al. tracks the numbers of sheet remaining as a function of the remaining film length and tracks this number for laminating sheets until a size equal to or less than a specified value, such as corresponding to sheet size, is detected, and then provides an alert (See page 8, paragraphs [0117] and [0118]). As described above, Nagata et al. is silent as to exacted how this alert is implemented, and it is not clear if attempting to laminate 11 sheets when only 10 sheets of film length would contain the job from starting or if the job would start and then stop when sheet film length is detected at the specified value.
Examiner submits in device that create sheet from a web that are paired with a fixed size associated with the web, it is known to allow a job to process, and then monitor the web supply in accordance with a threshold value, i.e. the specified value as in Nagata et al., and then adjust the timing of stopping based on when the threshold value is detected so that the web is properly adjusted to the required sheets before expiring (See, for example, Nieda et al., Fig. 4 and page 3, paragraph [0041] to page 4, paragraph [0051], wherein jobs are started even if there are more jobs requested than available, and the remaining web length [DL] is checked against a threshold [TL] based on a discrete length, an image size, but analogous to a discrete length such as a sheet, to ensure sufficient web is available for the discrete size before each process, and if not, the controller stops the job). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the device to operate whenever there is remaining laminate film and just stop the device at the specific value in Nagata et al. when it is detected in the film relative to the sheet being laminated as taught therein. Doing so enables the device to laminate whenever a job is selected and there is film available even if the film is less the required for the full job, thus starting lamination when lamination can occur and stopping before the specific value rather than constraining use. Examiner notes “maximum sheet size” since it is completely undefined and thus is any length, such as the sheet length or another length. The claim merely states adjusting based on size, i.e. counting down sheets, and then stopping at a time based on a threshold.
Note for Claim 16, the same logic applies. Examiner notes a specified value based on a sheet size may be considered less then “a maximum sheet conveyance distance,” which as above, is completely undefined by the system and thus may be any distance or less than the distance, including a sheet length distance. Likewise, “a conveyance distance” has the same problem of no connection to the structure of the system since nothing specifies the conveyance distance as being the distance the sheet is conveyed in the conveyor. The conveyance distance may be the distance the sheet is conveyed through the laminating nip, which is the distance of the sheet, and thus, as with Claim 14, the claim merely states adjusting based on size, i.e. counting down sheets, and then stopping at a time based on a threshold. Examiner also notes the logic of Claim 12 and 13 for conveyance distance could also be applied to Claim 16. Applicant must connect there distances to elements of the system or they are essentially meaningless other than to consider some length or distance.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. and Nieda et al. as applied to Claim 14 and 16 above, and further in view of Haraguchi et al.
Regarding Claims 15 and 17, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 14 and 16 as described above. As described, Nagata et al. tracks the numbers of sheets remaining as a function of the remaining film length and tracks this number for laminating sheets until a specified value, such as the sheet length, is equaled or exceeded and the system creates an alert (See page 8, paragraph [0117] and [0119]). This implies the sheet size must be known to make this computation and nothing in Nagata et al. states the device can only accommodate a single sheet size and specifically gives A4 paper size as an example, suggesting size is not fixed (See page 8, paragraph [0117]), and further indicating different size sheets, such as business cards and menus require lamination (See page 1, paragraph [0002]). If different sizes are known and usable in the device, the system must need input size to calculate the sheets remaining based on film length or else the device would be constrained to only operate with one size sheet without ever being suitable for proper use with a different sheet size. Further, it is well-known in lamination devices to impart sheet size on a selected display to ensure lamination conditions are correctly structured by the controller for said size (See, for example, Haraguchi et al., page 8, paragraphs [0159]-[0160], teaching selecting sheet size, such as A4 sized paper, or selecting length and width, to adapt the device to laminate said size). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement such a sheet size selection on the display panel to inform the controller of the sheet size so it can properly calculate the film length remaining as a function of sheet size as taught therein. Doing so would have predictably allowed the device in Nagata et al. to function as taught therein for a variety of different size paper, such as business cards or menu, thus providing wider laminating capability while still tracking film length remaining as a function of sheets to be laminated. As above, starting any job when there is film length and counting down sheet and stopping before the calculated threshold based on the remaining film as a factor sheet size is obvious to implement Nagata et al. with different sizes and to allow any laminating when film length remains for laminating. Claim 17 is rejected by the same logic. Examiner notes the second length and third length are claimed in isolation with no reference point and are thus no different from each other or the first length in Claim 11, except semantically.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. and Nieda et al. as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Haraguchi et al. and Kikuchi.
Regarding Claim 18, Nagata et al. teaches the method of Claim 16 as described above. As described above in the rejection of Claim 11, Nagata et al. adjusts the remaining sheets to be laminated as a function of sheet size, at least rendering obvious having settings that input different sheet sizes to make this sheet size output as a function of the film length (See, for example, Haraguchi et al., page 8, paragraphs [0159]-[0160], and logic of claim 11 above). Nagata et al. doesn’t specifically teach different sheet feed trays or different conveyance distances. However, it is known in laminating devices to pull separate sized sheets from separate trays via a sheet feeder and then routing them, via different conveyance distances, to a lamination device, such as after pre-printing (See, for example, Kikuchi, Figs. 1-2, page 2, paragraphs [0040]-[0041], page 9, paragraphs [0234]-[0237], and page 11, paragraph [0304], teaching pulling different sized sheets [S] from different paper cassettes [40A],[40B], i.e. trays, via sheet feeders [40a],[40b] and conveying them along different conveyance distance as clearly shown through a printer [6] and into a lamination device [110], shown clearer in Fig. 2, for laminating with film [LF]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement multiple trays in the device of Nagata et al. Doing so would have predictably enabled lamination of different size via the input setting as described above without implementing a new supply. By selecting a size, the device, as described above, would change/set the conveyance distance by selecting the relevant tray and then adapt calculating film supply as a function of the sheet size in the tray. Note for claim 16 with conveyance distance now more well defined, the hardware processor effectively adjusts in accordance with conveyance distance because the conveyance distance effectively denotes the sheet size since each sheet size is fed along a different conveyance distance, and the hardware processor adjusts sheet count based on size, and by consequence, conveyance distance associated with the size.
Regarding Claim 19, Kikuchi teaches a printer [6] as an apparatus between feeding area [40A],[40B] and a laminator [110], which may be a laminator such as in Nagata et al. as described above. Implementing such a printer provides a pre-printing function for full serve lamination as described above for Claim 8. Furthermore, any printer cause set the conveyance distance to an extent this distance must accommodate the printer and further, as discussed above, the configuration of the sheet feed also sets the path by drawing paper from different trays each having a different distance to the laminator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watanabe (US 2009/0041496 teaches tracking conveyance path to calculate number of sheets in path for processing (See page 7, paragraphs [0108]-[0110]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights