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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “sensor for monitoring tension of the material within the flexible conduit” of claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
It appears there is a typographical error and “claim 3” in line 1 of claim 18 should read “claim 1”, since claim 3 has been cancelled.
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.
Claims 1-2, and 5-21 are 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. In this case, the limitation in claim 1, “at least one sensor for monitoring tension of the material within the flexible conduit” is not described or disclosed in the specification or drawings. Sensor 92 described in the specification paragraph [0024] is “buffer sensor 92 which determines a numerical position of material buffer 80” which is located outside of the flexible conduit (Fig. 3; Paragraph [0030]) and thus does not monitor tension of the material within the flexible conduit. The only other sensor mentioned in the specification is sensor 60 which is “an accumulator position sensor” (Paragraph [0021], line 3) and is not monitoring tension within the flexible conduit but rather a position of the accumulated material outside the conduit (Fig. 2A).
Claims 2 and 5-21 are rejected because they depend from rejected base claim 1.
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) 1-2, 5-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koller et al., US4486261 in view of Oly, US4655873.
Regarding independent claim 1, Koller et al. discloses a feeding system configured to transport a material to a tape applicator ("The adhesive film strip is originally on a carrier tape and is on a storage reel from which it is drawn off by conveying rollers" Abstract, lines 5-7), the feeding system (System shown in Figure 7) comprising: a flexible conduit (119, Fig. 7) coupled between a spool unloading device (121, Fig. 7) and a tape applicator (101, 102, Fig. 7), wherein the flexible conduit (119, Fig. 7) receives the material from a source (spool 121, Fig. 7), wherein one end of the material is fed into the flexible conduit ("two synthetic resin plastic hoses 119 and 120, serving, respectively, for guiding the TK-tape from a storage reel 121 into the supply channel 117, and for guiding the carrier tape T from the removing channel 118 to a suctioning-off device 122" Column 9, lines 14-19); and a fluid amplifier ("suctioning-off device" Column 9, lines 18-19) coupled to a flexible conduit (120, Fig. 7) to facilitate movement of the material therein by creating a vacuum effect ("two synthetic resin plastic hoses 119 and 120, serving, respectively, for guiding the TK-tape from a storage reel 121 into the supply channel 117, and for guiding the carrier tape T from the removing channel 118 to a suctioning-off device 122" Column 9, lines 14-19), at least one sensor for monitoring tension of the material within the flexible conduit ("limit switches" Column 9, line 68); a variable loop (113, 125, Fig. 13) around which the material (TK, Fig. 1) exiting the flexible conduit (119, Fig. 7) at the tape applicator is wound to account for any variations in the metered rate and maintain tension within the material ("The control roller 116 is mounted on a guide arm 124 which can be swiveled about the shaft of the guide roller 113 and which is biased by a tension spring 125, whereby the adhesive film K is always lightly tensioned... The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 38-51); a positioning sensor (127, Fig. 13) associated with the variable loop and configured to detect an amount of the material within the variable loop ("The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 44-51).
Koller et al. does not disclose a fluid amplifier coupled to the flexible conduit to facilitate movement of the material from a spool unloading device towards a tape applicator and a control unit operably coupled to the positioning sensor and the fluid amplifier, wherein the control unit activates the fluid amplifier to feed the material into the flexible conduit in response to an input from the positioning sensor and wherein the control unit dynamically adjusts the vacuum effect to maintain a predetermined tension range and minimize material jams or breakage.
Oly teaches a device for applying tape having a fluid amplifier ("an air flow", Abstract, line 6) coupled to the flexible conduit to facilitate movement of the material from a spool unloading device towards a tape applicator ("said trough (6) being adapted for guiding the tape (14) to be wrapped which is driven through said trough (6) by means of an air flow" Abstract, lines 4-6) and a control unit operably coupled to the positioning sensor and the fluid amplifier (Column 4, lines 58-66), wherein the control unit activates the fluid amplifier to feed the material into the flexible conduit in response to an input from the positioning sensor and wherein the control unit dynamically adjusts the vacuum effect to maintain a predetermined tension range and minimize material jams or breakage (Column 4, lines 58-Column 5, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tape applicator with a flexible conduit and fluid amplifier creating a vacuum effect as disclosed by Koller et al. to couple a fluid amplifier to the flexible conduit between the spool unloading device and the tape applicator as taught by Oly so that the tape applicator could “operate faster” (Column 1, line 17; Oly) and be used with a variety of tapes of different widths (Column 4, lines 12-18; Oly). One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce friction between the tape and the flexible conduit, minimizing damage to the tape and more precisely control the rate at which tape is fed to the applicator.
Regarding claim 2, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the material (TK, Fig. 1) is unwound from the source (121, Fig. 7) and fed into the flexible conduit (119, Fig. 7) capable of bending in a non-linear path (conduit 119 bends in a no-linear path, Fig. 7) at the metered rate ("The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 47-51).
Regarding claim 5, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a material drive mechanism (motor 114, Fig. 13) replenishes the material in the variable loop based on a detected amount of the material within the variable loop ("The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 6, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the positioning sensor (127, Fig. 13) determines when the material should be fed into the flexible conduit (potentiometer 127 controls driving motor 114, to pull material from supply through conduit 119, Figs. 13, 7).
Regarding claim 7, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 5, and wherein the positioning sensor (127, Fig. 13) determines whether the detected amount of the material within the variable loop is with a predefined range ("The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 8, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 7, and a feeding system.
Koller et al., in view of Oly, does not teach wherein the predefined range is between a low threshold and a high threshold.
Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known that a range is between a low threshold and a high threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the feeding system of Koller et al., in view of Oly, to have high and low thresholds for the detected amount of material in the variable loop, so that the tape is constantly properly tensioned.
Regarding claim 9, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 8, and wherein the material drive mechanism (114, Fig. 13) is caused to stop feeding the material (TK, Fig. 13) when an amount of the material in the variable loop reaches the high threshold ("The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 10, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 8, and the at least one sensor ("limit switches" Column 9, line 68) detects loss of tension within the material and generates a fault signal ("the electronic circuit 123 is also devised for stopping abruptly the movement of the manipulating device (a robot), in cooperation with limit switches (not shown), whenever one of the possibilities of movement...of the diverse parts of the tape-application apparatus will exceed a certain limit set by the limit switches. It is thereby possible to avoid damaging of the application device or the sheet, or possibly of the robot" Column 9, line 66 - Column 10, line 6; the limit switches would be capable of detecting loss of tension and generating a fault signal).
Regarding claim 11, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and the at least one sensor ("limit switches" Column 9, line 68) detects a breakage of the material and generates a fault signal ("the electronic circuit 123 is also devised for stopping abruptly the movement of the manipulating device (a robot), in cooperation with limit switches (not shown), whenever one of the possibilities of movement...of the diverse parts of the tape-application apparatus will exceed a certain limit set by the limit switches. It is thereby possible to avoid damaging of the application device or the sheet, or possibly of the robot" Column 9, line 66 - Column 10, line 6; the limit switch would be capable of detecting a breakage of material and generating a fault signal).
Regarding claim 12, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and wherein the fault signal causes an automatic interruption of feeding of the material ("the electronic circuit 123 is also devised for stopping abruptly the movement of the manipulating device, in cooperation with limit switches" Column 9, lines 66-68; this abrupt stopping of manipulating device would also interrupt feeding of the material).
Regarding claim 13, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and a feeding system.
Koller et al., in view of Oly, does not teach wherein the fault signal requires manual interruption of feeding of the material.
Examiner takes official notice that it is well known to have a fault signal that requires manual interruption of feeding of the material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the feeding system of Koller et al., in view of Oly, to allow the operator to manually interrupt the feeding of the material at a fault signal as it would give the operator freedom to allow the feeder to continue operation in the event the fault signal is inaccurate. One would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify the system design.
Regarding claim 14, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 10, and a corrective action is taken to address an event leading to the fault signal ("the electronic circuit 123 is also devised for stopping abruptly the movement of the manipulating device, in cooperation with limit switches" Column 9, lines 66-68; this abrupt stopping of manipulating device would also interrupt feeding of the material), and the material drive mechanism is caused to feed the material following the corrective action ("The guide arm 124 is coupled with a potentiometer 127, whereby a swiveling of the control roller 116 causes a corresponding shift of the potentiometer 127. The potentiometer 127 is connected with the electronic circuit 123 and controls, together with the latter, the driving motor 114 for the conveyance of the tape, so that the pull in the adhesive film K always remains constant" Column 9, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 15, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the material (TK, Fig. 7) is guided upon entry to the flexible conduit (119, Fig. 7) and after exiting the flexible conduit (117, 112, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a device (112, Fig. 7) positioned at the flexible conduit exit (positioned at exit of 119, Fig. 7) re-orientates the material as desired (TK is re-oriented by 112 shown by the slight twisting of TK at 117, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and a limit switch resting on the material at the flexible conduit exit triggers new material to be fed into the flexible conduit ("the electronic circuit 123 is also devised for stopping abruptly the movement of the manipulating device (a robot), in cooperation with limit switches (not shown), whenever one of the possibilities of movement...of the diverse parts of the tape-application apparatus will exceed a certain limit set by the limit switches. It is thereby possible to avoid damaging of the application device or the sheet, or possibly of the robot" Column 9, line 66 - Column 10, line 6; a person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of placing such a limit switch on the material at the flexible conduit exit so that the limit switch triggers new material to be fed into the flexible conduit, such a control is possible by the electronic circuit 123).
Regarding claim 18, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1 (See Claim Objections for Claim 18, above), and wherein the variable loop (113, 116, Fig. 7) of the material is formed of at least two pulleys (113, 116, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 18, and the at least two pulleys (113, 116, Fig. 7) guide the material in a linear fashion (tape is guided through pulleys 113, 116 in a linear fashion, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the spool unloading device (121, Fig. 7) is located outside a cell (applicator head is located away from spool unloading device, connected only by flexible conduit 119, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 21, Koller et al., in view of Oly, teaches the invention substantially as claimed as described above in claim 1, and wherein the spool unloading device (121, Fig. 7) is located outside a cell in any orientation (applicator head is located away from spool unloading device, connected only by flexible conduit 119 which allows for any orientation of spool unloading device 121 with respect to applicator, Fig. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s assertion that the amendments filed 6/24/2026 have rendered the rejection under U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 2/24/2026 moot, is incorrect. Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the rejection under U.S.C. 112(a) or the drawing objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 2/24/2026. The limitation “at least one sensor for monitoring tension of the material within the flexible conduit” in line 8 of Claim 1 must be removed in order to overcome the rejection under U.S.C. 112 and drawing objection as set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments on pages 5 and 6 of Remarks filed 6/24/2026, that Koller does not disclose the fluid amplifier associated with the flexible tubing, it is noted that Examiner relies on Oly to teach this combination. Koller discloses a fluid amplifier and a flexible tubing, Oly teaches that the structure can be used to feed a flexible tape from the storage reel to the tape applicator. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that Koller does not disclose the claimed features of dynamically adjusting the vacuum effect to maintain a predetermined tension range, it is noted that Examiner relies on Oly to disclose this feature in combination with the additional amended limitations of claim 1 pertaining to the control unit. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Oly is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Oly concerns the structure of a device for applying tape having a fluid amplifier, and thus is analogous to Koller which is also a tape applicator having a fluid amplifier. Further, applicant’s assertion that the combination proposed by the Examiner would require a substantial redesign is directed to features which are not claimed, nor which Examiner relies on Oly to teach. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s assertion that Oly does not teach the amended features of claim 1, it is noted that Oly does teach said features, namely a control unit operably coupled to the positioning sensor and the fluid amplifier (Column 4, lines 58-66), wherein the control unit activates the fluid amplifier to feed the material into the flexible conduit in response to an input from the positioning sensor (Column 4, lines 58-Column 5, line 3). Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm EST.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights