DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood, US Pat No. 6,390,406.
Regarding Claim 3. Wood discloses a reliability test method for testing reliability of a sample coupled at both sides to a moving member and a winding member (Col. 8, lines 3-7; Figs. 1,2), respectively, the reliability test method comprising:
loading a minimum driving value that corresponds to kind of the sample coupled to the moving member and the winding member (Col. 8, lines 3-25, maintain minimum tension associated with cords; Col. 7, lines 1-4; Col. 2, rotating the mandrel in accordance to maintain the minimum tension, involves the minimum driving value), applying tension to the sample in correspondence to the minimum driving value, rotating the winding member at a preset angle (Col. 9, lines 5-29, rotating the mandrel at the selected angle using the expandable diaphragm and controlling tension by controlling the expanding diaphragm; Col. 8, lines 12-33);
measuring a rotation load that is applied to the sample by said step of rotating the winding member (Col. 7, lines 4-8, drive motor rotating the mandrel; Col. 7, lines 34-64, varying rotation measured by encoder indicative of the varying loads; Col. 6, lines 6-11, actual tension measured by load cells), comparing the rotation load with a preset limit load (Col. 7, lines 33-46, the control system controlling the rotation speed and angular acceleration of the mandrel, with the relative motion comparing to the speed to the theoretical speed on the mandrel to create path 12D at the proper tension T1 on the mandrel), determining that a current rotation load is equal to or less than the preset limit load, and in response to a current rotation load being equal to or less than the preset limit load, further rotating the winding member at the preset angle (Col. 9, lines 5-29, continuing the rotation at the preset conditional angle of zero; Col. 7, lines 33-46, the control system controlling the rotation speed and angular acceleration of the mandrel, with the relative motion “matching” the speed to the theoretical speed on the mandrel),
in determining that a current rotation load exceeds the preset limit load, and in response to the current rotation load exceeding the preset limit load, linearly sliding the moving member such that the tension in the sample is maintained at a preset limit load (Col. 8, lines 59-67, Col. 9, lines 1-4, adjusting the tension by either changing the center-to-center distance E of the pulleys or by expandable diaphragm, which obviously involves linearly reducing the distance E to lessen the tension)
Regarding Claim 4. Wood discloses after said step of controlling the moving member, repeating rotation of the winding member at the preset angle (Col. 8, lines 3-5, maintaining the minimum required tension)
Regarding Claim 5. Wood discloses the minimum driving value is determined as tension calculated by: performing an N-th rotation, said N being a natural number of the rotating the winding member at a preset reference angle or a preset examination angle (Col. 9, lines 5-29, angle),
measuring a rotation load that is applied to the sample by said step of rotating of the winding member (Col. 7, lines 4-8, drive motor rotating the mandrel; Col. 7, lines 34-64, varying rotation measured by encoder indicative of the varying load); comparing an N-th rotation load and an N-1-th rotation load for the rotation load (Col. 7, lines 34-64, detecting speed errors at various rotation speeds at varying driving loads involves comparing different speeds, which themselves would involve comparison of different rotation loads), and in response to the N-th rotation load being 0 or an N-th variation, which is obtained by subtracting the N-1-th rotation load from the N-th rotation load, being 0, repeating rotation of the winding member at the preset reference angle, and in response to the N-th rotation load or the N-th variation being greater than 0, determining the N-th rotation load as the minimum driving value of tension that is applied to the sample (controlling the tension as described in Col. 8, lines 3-40, and use of tension sensor determines the tension and maintaining minimum tension; lines 47-67, controlling rotation; Col. 9, lines 1-29; Fig. 2, adjustable base.) (Note: for the method claim, the limitation “in response to” is a contingent limitation, and both of the steps proceeding “in response to” are not required to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04, Section II)
Regarding Claim 6. Wood discloses the minimum driving value is determined as tension calculated by: performing an N-th rotation, said N being a natural number of the rotating the winding member at a preset reference angle or a preset examination angle (Col. 9, lines 5-29, angle),
measuring a rotation load that is applied to the sample by said step of rotating of the winding member (Col. 7, lines 4-8, drive motor rotating the mandrel; Col. 7, lines 34-64, varying rotation measured by encoder indicative of the varying load); comparing an N-th rotation load and an N-1-th rotation load for the rotation load (Col. 7, lines 34-64, detecting speed errors at various rotation speeds at varying driving loads involves comparing different speeds, which themselves would involve comparison of different rotation loads), and
in response to the N-th rotation load being 0 or the N-th variation, which is obtained by subtracting the N-1-th rotation load from the N-th rotation load, being 0, repeating rotation of the winding member at the preset reference angle, and
in response to the N-th rotation load or the N-th variation being greater than 0,
performing an N+1-th rotation of rotating the winding member at a preset examination angle, measuring the rotation load that is applied to the sample (controlling the tension as described in Col. 8, lines 3-40, and use of tension sensor determines the tension and maintaining minimum tension; lines 47-67, controlling rotation; Col. 9, lines 1-29; Fig. 2, adjustable base.); and in response to both the N+1-th rotation load and the N-th rotation load being greater than 0, determining the N-th rotation load as the minimum driving value of tension that is applied to the sample, wherein the preset examination angle is smaller than the preset reference angle (Note: for the method claim, the limitation “in response to” is a contingent limitation, and all three of the steps proceeding “in response to” are not required to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04, Section II)
Regarding Claim 7. Wood discloses a reliability test device of a sample (Abstract), comprising: a base, a winding member that winds the sample thereon and is rotatably coupled to the base, a moving member to which an end of the sample wound on the winding member is detachably coupled and that is slidably coupled to the base member at a predetermined distance from the winding member (Fig. 2, Col. 8, lines 48-58, Col. 9, lines 1-28, adjustable distance E); and a controller configured to control operation of the winding member and the moving member (Col. 5, lines 10-15, control device; Col. 5, lines 39-43, control system; Col. 7, lines 4-7, lines 33-64), wherein the control member is configured to control rotation of the winding member and slide of the moving member according to the reliability test method of claim 3 (Col. 8, lines 3-40, maintain minimum tension; Col. 8, lines 47-67, controlling rotation in accordance with the minimum tension; Col. 9, lines 1-29; Fig. 2, adjustable base).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Wood not teaching or suggesting in regard to linearly sliding the moving member in response to current rotation load exceeding the preset limit load, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wood discloses adjusting the tension by either changing the center-to-center distance E of the pulleys or by expandable diaphragm (Col. 8, lines 59-67, Col. 9, lines 1-4), via feedback system (Col. 5, lines 39-43), which obviously would involve linearly reducing the distance E to lessen the tension, if the tension or the rotation load is beyond the allowable range (Col. 8, lines 9-11).
Further, Applicant’s argument in regard to any “specific discrete angle” is moot, as the claims do not recite any discrete angle. Rather, the claims broadly recite a preset angle associated with the rotation of the winding member. To reiterate, Wood discloses rotating the winding member at the preset angle (Col. 9, lines 5-29; Col. 7, lines 33-46), where, the control system controlling the rotation speed and angular acceleration of the mandrel, with the relative motion “matching” the speed to the theoretical speed on the mandrel, and continuing the rotation at the preset conditional tooth pressure angle. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857