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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant filed a response; amended claim 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19-20, and 26 on 11/18/2025; and cancelled claims 4 and 13 on 11/18/2025.
The claim objection of claim 20; 112(b) rejections of claims 13, 15, and 19; and 112(d) rejections of claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily directed to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “variable loop” in claim 24 and 25 was found persuasive.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 cutting mechanism” in claim 1 and 4-6;
“a liner recovery mechanism” in claim 22; and
“applying device to apply said adhesion promoter” in claim 26.
The following interpretations are made based on the disclosure:
“a cutting mechanism” is interpreted as a blade and its equivalents thereof and [0026]; and
“a liner recovery mechanism” is interpreted as an outfeed tube and/or vacuum source and their equivalents thereof [0027].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26 recite “an applying device to apply said adhesion promoter”.
The structure of the “applying device” is not disclosed. Accordingly, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 19 and 26 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 16 recites “a rounded edge”, and the dependent claim 19 recites “wherein at least one of the rounded edge”. Claim 19 limitation is indefinite because there appears to be only one rounded edge.
Claim limitation “applying device to apply said adhesion promoter” in claim 26 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 14-16, 22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi teaches an applicator head for applying an adhesive tape on a surface or substrate, wherein the adhesive tape comprises a material and at least one removable liner, the applicator head comprising:
an application tip [0031];
a cutting mechanism position adjacent an outer most point of the application tip (Figure 10-15 and [0037]);
a positioning device is configured such that the cutting the mechanism severs the material while maintaining the at least one moveable liner intact (Figure 10-15) and [0037]-[0038];
wherein the positioning device comprises at least one of a threaded adjuster, an eccentric lobe, and a stop capable of modification to suit a predetermined thickness, for performing adjustments (Figure 5-6 and 10-15, item 13f- a stop; [0037]-[0038]).
Iguchi does not teach at least one sensor positioned upstream of the application tip for tracking and calculating an amount of material between the cutting mechanism and the application tip.
Tsumura teaches an tape application device comprising an optical sensor provided in front of the pressing roller, wherein by detecting the tape disposed, the feeding operation of the end portion and the next starting portion of the tape is precisely controlled (Figure 16, item 31 [0022], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the apparatus of Iguchi with the optical sensor of Tsumura for the benefit of precisely controlling tape application as taught by Tsumura.
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism is positioned at a predetermined distance from the application tip (Iguchi, Figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism is positioned away from the application tip to allow for clearance to the substrate (Iguchi, Figures 5-6 and 10-15).
Regarding claim 14, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not teach a delamination device, wherein the material travels through the delamination device comprising rollers configured to separate the material and the at least one removable liner from each other temporarily before reapplying the material to the at least one removable liner to loosen the bond.
Tsumura teaches a tape application device comprising a preliminary peeling portion comprising peeling rollers for preliminary peeling the tape when the adhesive strength of the seal tape is relatively strong (Figure 3, 9, and 10 [0027] and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with the delamination device of Tsumura for the benefit of preliminarily peeling the tape before tape application.
Regarding claim 15, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism is positioned at the point in which the material is separated from the at least one removable liner to allow for cutting without impacting the at least one removable liner (Iguchi, Figures 5-6 and 10-15 and [0037]).
Regarding claim 16, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, wherein the application tip comprises a rounded edge capable of causing the material to peel from the at least one removable liner to expose the adhesive (Iguchi, Figures 5-6 and 10-15 and [0037]).
Regarding claim 22, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, further comprising a liner recovery mechanism to remove the at least one removable liner from the adhesive tape before application to a substrate (Iguchi, Figure 1 and 4 and [0029], items 115, 120, 121).
Regarding claim 24, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, further comprising a variable loop to maintain tension on the adhesive tape to assist with peeling and feeding thereof (Iguchi, Figure 1-4 and [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 25, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1, further comprising a variable loop capable of maintaining tension on the adhesive tape to promote precise cutting of the material (Iguchi, Figure 1-4 and [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 27, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 1, wherein the applicator head is capable of use with a variety of tapes, including double-sided tape (Iguchi, [0025]-[0026]).
Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims(see MPEP § 2115).
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Zaballos (PG-PUB 2006/0118244).
Regarding claim 2, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head of claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism comprises a cutting blade [0065]-[0068].
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not explicitly teach the blade comprises a straight cutting edge.
Zaballos teaches a multiple head tape placement system comprising a cutting apparatus comprising a curved blade and a flat blade (Figures12A-12F and [0006]-[0008]; [0042]; [0046]). Zaballos teaches a cutting edge 180 could be provided that is
straight all the way across, at an angle to horizontal similar to either leg of the inverted "V" shape cutting edge, and with appropriate adjustment to the curvature of curved blade 152 [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Iguchi with a cutting apparatus comprising a blade with a straight cutting edge and a blade with a curved cutting edge, a suitable cutting mechanism as taught by Zaballos, to yield the predictable result of cutting the tape with a suitable cutter as desired by Iguchi.
Regarding claim 3, Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Zaballos teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 2, further comprising a blade actuator comprising at least one of a pneumatic actuator (Iguchi, Figure 5-6 and [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Zaballos teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 3, wherein the blade is actuated in at least one of a horizontal, vertical, and diagonal axis (Iguchi, Figures 5-6 and 10-11).
Regarding claim 8, Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Zaballos teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 2, wherein the blade is positioned to sever the material beyond the application tip in freespace (Iguchi, Figures 5-6 and 10-15).
Regarding claim 11, Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Zaballos teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 2, wherein the cutting mechanism comprises a blade comprising a curved cutting edge actuatable to sever the material only (Zaballos, Figures12A-12F and [0006]-[0008]; [0042]; [0046]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Budge ‘059 (PG-PUB 2019/0315059).
Regarding claim 10, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 1, wherein the cutting mechanism comprises a blade actuatable to sever the material only (Iguchi, Figures 5-6).
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not explicitly teach the blade is serrated.
Budge ‘059 teaches a system for additive manufacturing a continuous reinforcement coated in a matrix using an applicator head, wherein the continuous reinforcement is cut using a blade with a serrated cutting edge [0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Iguchi in view of Tsumura, in particularly the knife of Iguchi, with a serrated cutting edge, a known suitable mechanism for cutting matrix-coated reinforcement as taught by Budge ‘059, to yield the predictable result of cutting the continuous tapes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Craig (US 3,992,244).
Regarding claim 12, Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Zaballos teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 2, wherein the cutting mechanism comprises a blade actuatable to sever the material only (Iguchi, [0081]-[0083]).
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not explicitly teach the blade is heated to assist in severing the material.
Craig teaches an apparatus for applying severed strips of double coated adhesive tape to a substrate (Abstract). Craig teaches a severing means comprising a heated elongate thin blade mounted on a pivotable arm, wherein the heated blade severs the tape and adhesive by rapid brief contact with the tape (col 2, ln 48- col 3, ln 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the apparatus of Iguchi in view of Tsumura by modifying the cutting mechanism of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with the capability of heating, to sever tape by rapid and brief contact as taught by Craig.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 16, in further view of Frank (US 4,560,433).
Regarding claim 17-19, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 16.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not teach the application tip is coated with a coating composition, wherein the coating composition is non-stick and frictionless, wherein the at least one of the rounded edge and coating composition reduces friction and reduces the possibility of the material sticking to the application tip.
Frank teaches all surfaces of the various elements of the tape applicator head 10 which engage the tape are formed from or coated with a material, such as Teflon, having inherent release characteristics, wherein the tape engaging surfaces include the peripheral surfaces of the rollers 18, 64, and 66, the adjacent planar surfaces of the feeder plates 74 and 76, and the peripheral surfaces of the belts 56 of the dispensing and compacting blocks 26 and 28 (Figures 1 and 2; Col 6, ln 28-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the applicator head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura, in particularly the application tip of Iguchi in view of Tsumura, with a coating as taught by Frank to reduce friction on the tape as taught by Frank and desired by Iguchi. Therefore, the rounded tip and coating composition of the application tip of Iguchi in view of Tsumura and Frank would reduce friction and reduce the possibility of the material sticking to the application tip.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lengen (US 4,997,513).
Regarding claim 21, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the applicator head as applied to claim 1.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not explicitly teach further comprising a bar or roller positioned adjacent the application tip to apply pressure to the adhesive tape.
Lengen teaches a tool support 5 carries two rollers 7 and 8 for feeding, guiding, and pressing the tape 15 against a structural component being manufactured (Figures 1-4; Col 4, Ln 11-30). Lengen teaches the robot arm brings the dispenser into a starting position determined by a program in a control computer and presses the rollers 7 and 8 against the molding apparatus to thereby firmly press the tape 15 against a grid structure 21 (Figure 1-4 and Col 4, ln 41-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the applicator head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with a roller positioned adjacent the application tip to apply pressure to the adhesive tape as taught by Lengen, for the benefit of further pressing the tape against surface to be fixed.
Claim 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (JP2018188290A, machine translation relied upon for citation) in view of Tsumura (JPH09202515, machine translation relied upon for citation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sharp (PG-PUB 2005/0161161).
Regarding claim 20, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not teach the application tip is coupled to a source of pressurized air to facilitate peeling of the material from the at least one removable liner.
Sharp teaches air ports or air jets provided on the tape application surface of a nose of an applicator head to allow more air bearing effect around the nose, thereby reducing the friction of the tape on the nose due to capstan effect and thus reducing torque required to feed the tape through the head [0088]-[0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with air ports or air jets of Sharp for the benefit of reducing friction of the tape on applicator surfaces.
Regarding claim 23, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not teach a sensor located on an outbound side of the applicator tip to sense and determine whether the material was applied correctly.
Sharp teaches an application head for applying an adhesive tape comprises at least one sensor on the applicator head to ensure the tape is being applied on to the workpiece and confirm the amount of tape applied using an optical system (Sharp, [0112], [0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with the sensor of Sharp for the benefit of monitoring and confirming proper tape dispensed.
Given that the sensor is an optical system disposed on the applicator head to confirm the tape is being properly applied, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to dispose the sensor located on an outbound side of the application tip in order to provide an unobstructed view of the applied tape.
Regarding claim 26, Iguchi in view of Tsumura teaches the head as applied to claim 1.
Iguchi in view of Tsumura does not teach an additional attachment containing adhesion promoter and an applying device to apply said adhesion promoter.
Sharp teaches an applicator head for applying an adhesive tape on a surface or substrate, wherein the adhesive tape comprises a material and at least one removable liner [0076] and [0083], the applicator head comprising:
an application tip (Figure 1 and 2, item 9 and [0087]);
a cutting mechanism positioned adjacent an outermost point of the application tip [0080]-[0083];
a tape tensioning mechanism comprising nip rollers (i.e., a positioning device) capable such that the cutting mechanism severs the material while capable of maintaining a removable liner intact [0083]-[0084], [0108]; and
an additional attachment containing adhesion promoter and a device for applying said adhesion promoter (Figure 9 and [0105]-[0106]).
Sharp teaches the additional attachment and device for applying said adhesion promoter can include a system for dispensing a fluid or air-blast [0105], [0106]. Sharp teaches the cleaning mechanism can be connected to the tape applicator and clean the work-piece immediately before the tape application [0105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the head of Iguchi in view of Tsumura with an additional attachment capable of containing an adhesion promoter and applying device suitable for applying said promoter as taught by Sharp for the benefit of cleaning the work-piece and applicator and improving adhesion of the tape.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745