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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN112033899A).
Considering claim 1, Huang discloses an apparatus for measuring sealing strength, the apparatus comprising:
- a fixed plate 162 (Figures 1-3; [0045];
- a moving plate 133 on which a measurement object formed by bonding first 200 and second 300 specimens is mounted, and movably disposed on the fixed plate (Figures 1-3; [0045]; [0047]);
- a load applier 140 measuring a load applied to the first specimen 300 to peel off the first specimen 300 from the second specimen 200;
- a clamp 134 provided on the moving plate 133 and clamping or unclamping the measurement object 200/300 (Figure 3; [0041]),
- wherein the clamp 134 comprises a pair of clamps 136 that are disposed spaced apart from each other along a peeling direction of the first specimen so as to clamp opposite ends of the measurement object 200/300 (Figure 3; [0041], individual air adsorption holes each clamp the object to the moving plate);
- wherein the first specimen 300 is peeled off from the second specimen 200 while maintaining a predetermined peeling angle (Figures 1 and 5; [0050]; [0052]).
Considering claim 2, Huang discloses that the moving plate is disposed on the fixed plate to be movable in a horizontal direction ([0040]).
Considering claim 3, Huang discloses that the load applier is disposed above the moving plate to be movable in a vertical direction ([0040]).
Considering claim 4, Huang discloses that the load applier comprises:
- a load measuring device 144 moved in a vertical direction (Figure 5; [0050]; and
- a jig 143 coupled to the load measuring device 144 and holding an end of the first specimen 300 (Figures 1 and 5; [0050]).
Considering claim 5, Huang discloses that an imaginary straight line connecting a holding point of the jig and a peeling point of the first specimen is orthogonal to an upper surface of the moving plate (Figure 1; [0052]).
Considering claim 6, Huang discloses that the fixed plate is provided with a guide rail 163 on an upper surface of the fixed plate, and the moving plate 133 has a rail groove 137 movably coupled to the guide rail on a lower surface of the moving plate (Figures 2-3; [0047]).
Considering claim 7, Huang discloses that the guide rail and the rail groove are oriented along a peeling direction of the first specimen (Figures 1-3).
Considering claim 10, Huang discloses that the first and second specimens are an electrode and a backing tape, but fails to explicitly disclose that the first specimen is provided as a pouch casing, and the second specimen is provided as an electrode tab. However, in accordance with MPEP 2115, the ““[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not given patentable weight, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as its parent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaipal (NPL – PT190 – 90 degree Peel Test Attachment with moving Base Sledge) in view of Deng et al. (US 2008/0202254 A1).
Considering claim 1 Jaipal discloses an apparatus for measuring sealing strength, the apparatus comprising:
- a fixed plate (Second Figure, Lower part of sliding table);
- a moving plate on which a measurement object formed by bonding first and second specimens is mounted, and movably disposed on the fixed plate (Sledge moves horizontally with movement of crossbeam);
- a load applier measuring a load applied to the first specimen to peel off the first specimen from the second specimen;
- wherein a clamp is provided on the moving plate and clamping or unclamping the measurement object (“samples…are held on the test bed using a clamp”);
- wherein the first specimen is peeled off from the second specimen while maintaining a predetermined peeling angle (Load cell of testing device).
The invention by Jaipal fails to explicitly disclose a pair of clamps.
However, Deng teaches at least a pair of clamps 48, specifically through 50, that are disposed spaced apart from each other along a peeling direction of the first specimen so as to clamp opposite ends of the measurement object (Figures 1-2, and 5A-6; [0035]; [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize at least two spaced apart clamps in the invention by Jaipal, as taught by Deng. The motivation for doing so is to secure the base substrate to the base plate, as suggested by Deng ([0035]).
Considering claim 2, Jaipal discloses that the moving plate is disposed on the fixed plate to be movable in a horizontal direction (“the bad (sic) is pulled horizontally”).
Considering claim 3, Jaipal discloses that the load applier is disposed above the moving plate to be movable in a vertical direction (First figure, movable crossbeam is an inherent feature of the H5KS machine).
Considering claim 4, Jaipal discloses that the load applier comprises:
- a load measuring device (Z beam load cell) moved in a vertical direction (affixed on crossbeam); and
- a jig coupled to the load measuring device and holding an end of the first specimen (First figure, inherent standard feature of H5KS tester is a Z beam load cell, which is shown located above vice grip and specimen).
Considering claim 5, Jaipal discloses that an imaginary straight line connecting a holding point of the jig and a peeling point of the first specimen is orthogonal to an upper surface of the moving plate (“maintaining a peel angle of 90º”).
Considering claim 10, Jaipal discloses that the first and second specimens are copper and PCB or other laminate/layer boned specimens, but fails to explicitly disclose that the first specimen is provided as a pouch casing, and the second specimen is provided as an electrode tab. However, in accordance with MPEP 2115, the ““[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not given patentable weight, and the claim is rejected under the same rationale as its parent claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaipal (NPL – PT190 – 90 degree Peel Test Attachment with moving Base Sledge) in view of Deng et al. (US 2008/0202254 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN112033899A).
Considering claim 6, Jaipal discloses a horizontal test bed having a movable plate mounted on bearings within a lower fixed frame, but Jaipal, as modified by Deng, fails to disclose the fixed plate has a guide rail that supports a rail groove of the movable plate.
However, Huang teaches that a fixed plate is provided with a guide rail 163 on an upper surface of the fixed plate, and a moving plate 133 has a rail groove 137 movably coupled to the guide rail on a lower surface of the moving plate (Figures 2-3; [0047]).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent guide rail and rail groove of Huang for the lower frame with bearing supported movable plate of Jaipal, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. Given the functional equivalent of allowing the horizontal translation of a movable plate, the two techniques are considered interchangeable for the intended purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a lower guide rail and an upper rail groove in the respective fixed and movable plates of Jiapal, as modified by Deng, as taught by Huang.
Considering claim 7, Jiapal already discloses that the horizontal translation of the movable plate is in the direction of the peel (Figures, Document).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the response, Applicant jumps directly to the invention by Deng to discuss a structural difference of Deng, as it is applied to the claim limitation of “a pair of clamps that are disposed spaced apart from each other along a peeling direction of the first specimen so as to clamp opposite ends of the measurement object”. Applicant argues, with respect to the combination of Jaipal, in view of Deng, that Deng fails to disclose two spaced clamps because Deng, supposedly, discloses an entire peripheral clamping plate that clamps the measurement object without two discrete spaced clamps.
The Examiner notes that Applicant states “[t]he claimed clamps do not surround the specimen and do not frame the central portion. Instead, they hold only the two ends of the measurement object”. However, the claim is not restricted to only two clamps, in that it must comprise at least two spaced clamps at opposing ends. The invention may have additional clamps, so long as it at least has the two claimed clamps (See MPEP 2111.03(I)).
Furthermore, it is noted that the invention by Deng features a frame plate 48 that is overlayed on top of a media slide 46 having a substrate T disposed thereon, wherein the substrate T has a test specimen S adhered thereto. The specimen S is ultimately peeled from the media slide (Deng; [0035-36]). According to Deng the frame plate 48 serves to secure the substrate T to the base plate 40, wherein “a plurality of clamping plate screws 50 my be provided for securing substrate clamping plate 48 and substate T to substrate”. Therefore, without the clamping screws 50, which are positioned on opposing ends of the substrate T, the clamping plate does not secure the substrate T. It is only through the laterally spaced clamping screws 50 that the clamping function is provided. Therefore, the structure of the lateral spaced clamps is provided by clamping screws 50. Applicant’s arguments against Deng are not persuasive.
Continuing on pages 5-6 of the response, Applicant argues that Deng fails to provide certain technical effects as a result of the failure to provide the claimed structure. However, since the Examiner has found the claimed structure in Deng, the technical effects are therefore, since the Applicant states they are a result of the structure, also provided. Accordingly, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Additionally, the Examiner is unsure how the two spaced clamps are better at providing the technical effects than the structure of Deng, even if it was different. Applicant has merely alleged that the structure of Deng would fail to provide the effects but has provided no evidence or explanation thereof. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the technical effects) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pages 6-7 of the response, Applicant accepts that Huang may disclose the claimed structure, but then alleges that Huang fails to disclose technical effects of the claimed invention. This is contrary to the preceding arguments against Deng where Applicant argued that the claimed structure provided the unclaimed technical effects. Here, however, Applicant alleges that even if Huang disclosed the claimed structure, they would still fail to provide the technical effects. It is unclear to which fact the Applicant would choose to rely on, does the structure provide the technical effects or not? In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the technical effects) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On pages 7-8 of the response these arguments are moot because the rejection of claims 1-5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been removed.
On page 8 of the response the Applicant again refers to technical effects of the claimed structure, as it relates to Jaipal in view of Huang. It is noted that Deng is relied upon for teaching the features of the clamp, which Applicant is using as a basis for their arguments. 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). It is again noted that Applicant is arguing features which are unclaimed and which appear to be a result of the claimed structure alone. Since the claimed structure is shown in both rejections, either the rejection using Huang or the rejection using Jaipal, then the claims are rendered obvious. The unclaimed technical effects are simply not sufficient to show that the structure is not anticipated by Huang or rendered obvious by a combination with Jaipal and Deng. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the technical effects) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spinella et al. (US 2015/0330884 A1) explicitly discloses two spaced lateral clamps for clamping a substrate, upon which an adhered sample is held, wherein during a peel test the sample is peeled from the substrate.
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 Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 December 23, 2025