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 Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed May 30, 2023, is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the express incorporation by reference of either (which one is intended to be so incorporated by reference is unclear) of PCT/KR2021/016869 or Korean Patent Application No. 10-2020-0163718.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
In particular, note that the preliminary amendment to the specification was filed May 30, 2023, and that since the present application is merely a stage of the PCT (i.e., the national stage of the PCT), the filing date of the present application is the filling date of the PCT application, which is November 17, 2021, which is prior to the amendment of May 30, 2023. See, for example, MPEP section 1893.03(b), which states:
An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application.
To add an express incorporation by reference statement after the original filing date constitutes new matter.
See MPEP section 608.01 (p), which teaches the following:
As a safeguard against the omission of a portion of a prior application for which priority is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), or for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, applicant may include a statement at the time of filing of the later application incorporating by reference the prior application. See MPEP § 201.06(c) and § 211 et seq. where domestic benefit is claimed. See MPEP §§ 213-216 where foreign priority is claimed. See MPEP §217 regarding 37 CFR 1.57(b). The inclusion of such an incorporation by reference statement in the later-filed application will permit applicant to include subject matter from the prior application into the later-filed application without the subject matter being considered as new matter. For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date (see 35 U.S.C. 132(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 11, lines 20-22, the specification states that “[I]n the front-rear direction (indicated by the x-axis), the position of the edge E of the cutter blade 320 may be disposed to be spaced a predetermined distance d apart from a tip of the base 100”. However, this teaching does not appear to be consistent with the drawings. For example, see Figure 9, which shows the spacing of the cutter blade 320 (of the peeling cutter 300) from the base 100. However, see also Figure 6, which shows the distance “d” described on page 11, lines 20-22. It appears that “base 100” on page 11, line 22, should be changed to –body 310—to be consistent with the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the peeling cutter that is “disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”, as set forth in claim 2 (for example, it is noted that the drawings do not show the entire peeling cutter 300 being disposed to be tilted as in able to be swiveled/pivoted/tilted).
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 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:
“suction unit” in claim 8;
“vision device…to obtain an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed” in claim 10; and
“seating portion” in claim 11.
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 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.
Claims 1-13 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.
In claim 1, lines 4-5, the claim recites “a clamp configured to fix a second area of the connector ribbon excluding a first area thereof”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what “thereof” is intended to refer, i.e., of what? For example, it is unclear as claimed whether “thereof” is intended to refer to the connector ribbon, the second area, etc.
In claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first area is disposed in a horizontal direction”. However, it is unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of first area are intended to be encompassed by the term “disposed in a horizontal direction”, and what configuration(s) of first area are intended to excluded by this term. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such intends to require the first area to have a horizontal dimension, to have an unspecified (in the claim) aspect (axis, surface, etc.) that extends in a horizontal direction, to be disposed horizontally adjacent to or horizontally spaced from some unspecified (in the claim) element or location, etc.
In claim 2, the claim recites “the peeling cutter is disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “disposed to be tilted” intends to describe a physical configuration of some (unspecified in the claim) aspect (axis, surface, etc.) of the (overall) peeling cutter relative to some (unspecified in the claim) aspect of the first area, or whether “disposed to be tilted” instead intends to reference an action/capability of the peeling cutter (as in the peeling cutter is configured to be able to tilt/swivel/pivot).
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “wherein the peeling cutter includes a body connected to the driver and a cutter blade configured to extend from the body”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a cutter blade configured to extend from the body” is intended to go, i.e., “the peeling cutter includes”, or “a body connected to”.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “the cutter blade includes a first surface and a second surface configured to form an edge of the cutter blade”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “configured to form an edge of the cutter blade” is intended to go only with “a second surface”, or whether “configured to form an edge of the cutter blade” is instead intended to go with both “a second surface” and “a first surface”.
In claim 3, the claim sets forth “the first and second surface are disposed in a direction inclined relative to the horizontal direction”. However, it is unclear as claimed what is meant by surfaces being “disposed in a direction”. In particular, it is unclear as claimed what configuration(s) of first and second surface are intended to be encompassed by the term “disposed in direction inclined relative to the horizontal direction”, and what configuration(s) of first and second surface are intended to excluded by this term. For example, it is unclear as claimed whether such intends to require the first and second surfaces to extend in a direction that is inclined relative to the horizontal direction, to be disposed so as to be adjacent and/or spaced in a horizontal direction and also spaced relative from one another in a direction that is inclined relative to the horizontal direction, etc.
In claim 7, the claim sets forth “wherein the brush is mounted on a first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted…”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim to what “which” is intended to refer in this limitation, i.e., the driver, the first stage, etc.
Claim limitation “suction unit” (in at least claim 8) 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely describes the function of the suction unit, and only schematically shows the suction unit 600 (in Figure 3). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the function of suctioning. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the causing of suction to suction the protective film peeled from the first area. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed 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.
In claim 8, penultimate line, the limitation “the cutter blade” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim.
In claim 9, in the limitation “the first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted”, it is unclear as claimed to what “which” is intended to refer, i.e., the driver or the first stage.
In claim 9, the limitation “the first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Firstly, note that no “first stage” of the driver was previously recited at all, and additionally, no first stage of the driver “on which the peeling cutter is mounted” was previously recited in the claim, and additionally, no “driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted” was previously recited in the claim.
In claim 9, the claim recites “wherein the suction tube is mounted on the first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted and moves along with the peeling cutter in a front-rear direction”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what the limitation “and moves along with the peeling cutter in a front-rear direction” is intended to go, i.e., on which, vs. vs. the suction tube, and thus, it is unclear as claimed what is being set forth as moving along with the peeling cutter in a front-rear direction, i.e., the first stage of the driver, or the suction tube.
Claim limitation “vision device…to obtain an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed” (in at least claim 10) 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. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely describes the function of the vision device 700, and only schematically shows the vision device 700 (in Fig. 14). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed function of obtaining an image. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the obtaining of an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed 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.
In claim 11, the claim recites “the apparatus further comprises a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon and a base connected to the groove and including a seating portion on which the clamp is seated”. However, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a base connected to the groove” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus further comprises…”, or “a groove configured to accommodate…”. Additionally, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and including a seating portion…” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus …” including a seating portion, vs. a “groove configured to accommodate a connector ribbon…and” (the groove) “including a seating portion…”, vs. “a base…including a seating portion…”, or some other interpretation. In the event such is in keeping with Applicant’s intent, Applicant may wish to consider language such as --the base further comprises a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon, the base also including a seating portion on which the clamp is seated…-- (instead of “the apparatus further comprises a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon and a base connected to the groove and including a seating portion on which the clamp is seated”).
In claim 12, the limitation “the first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Firstly, it is noted that no “first stage” was previously recited in the claim at all, and further, it is noted that, particularly, no first stage of the driver “on which the peeling cutter is mounted” was previously recited in the claim.
In claim 12, the claim sets forth “wherein the clamp is mounted on the first stage of the driver on which the peeling cutter is mounted and moves along with the peeling cutter in a front-rear direction”. However, it is unclear as set forth in the claim what is being set forth as moving along with the peeling cutter in a front-rear direction, i.e., the clamp, the first stage, or the driver.
In claim 13¸ the claim sets forth “wherein a first unit and a second unit each including the clamp, the peeling cutter, and the driver are provided; the first area includes a first-first area disposed on one side of the base and a first-second area disposed on the other side of the base; the first unit is disposed at the one side of the base to push and bend the first-first area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-first area; and the second unit is disposed at the other side of the base to push and bend the first-second area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-second area”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many of the previously-recited clamp(s), peeling cutter(s), and driver(s) are intended to be required, i.e., each of the first and second units has a respective clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, for a total of two clamps, two peeling cutters, and two drivers, or, as the claim actually says, each of the first and second units has “the” previously-recited clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, such that each of the first and second units shares the previously-recited (one) clamp, (one) peeling cutter, and (one) driver. In the event that the former is intended, it is noted that such is not what the claim actually says, and it is further unclear (if the former is intended) how the one clamp, one peeling cutter, and one driver that were previously recited would be configured with the two units, i.e., it is unclear what relationships/features of these elements from claim 1 would be required for each of the first and second units. In the event that the latter is intended, it is unclear how or in what regard a singular clamp, peeling cutter, and driver are to be able to be simultaneously disposed on opposite sides of the base (as recited in claim 13) and operate (re the first and second units in the last four lines of claim 13) as claimed.
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 2-13 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 claim 2, the claim recites “the peeling cutter is disposed to be tilted relative to the first area”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear as claimed whether “disposed to be tilted” intends to describe a physical configuration of some (unspecified in the claim) aspect (axis, surface, etc.) of the (overall) peeling cutter relative to some (unspecified in the claim) aspect of the first area, or whether “disposed to be tilted” instead intends to reference an action/capability of the peeling cutter (as in the peeling cutter is configured to be able to tilt/swivel/pivot). As also noted in a separate rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove, in claim 1, lines 4-5, it is unclear as claimed to what “thereof” is intended to refer in the limitation “a first area thereof”, and thus it is unclear throughout the claims as to what the first area belongs or is a first area “of”, i.e., a first area of what? All that being said, in the event that the term “tilted” is intended to reference an action/capability of the cutter (i.e., to tilt/swivel/pivot), the specification as filed does not appear to teach, in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
Regarding claim 8 and the recited “suction unit”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of suctioning the protective film peeled from the first area. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10 and the recited “vision device”, as discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 USC 112(f). As described above in a rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(b), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of obtaining an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed. That said, the specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 11, the claim recites “the apparatus further comprises a groove configured to accommodate the connector ribbon and a base connected to the groove and including a seating portion on which the clamp is seated”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove, firstly, it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and a base connected to the groove” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus further comprises…”, or “a groove configured to accommodate…”. Additionally, (as also noted in the aforementioned rejection under 35 USC 112(b)) it is unclear as set forth in the claim with what “and including a seating portion…” is intended to go, i.e., “the apparatus …” including a seating portion, vs. a “groove configured to accommodate a connector ribbon…and” (the groove) “including a seating portion…”, vs. “a base…including a seating portion…”, or some other interpretation. That said, in the event that the intent is for claim 11 to require the base 100 to be accommodated by/in the groove 110, it does not appear that the specification clearly teaches such in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof. See Figure 1, for example.
In claim 13¸ the claim sets forth “wherein a first unit and a second unit each including the clamp, the peeling cutter, and the driver are provided; the first area includes a first-first area disposed on one side of the base and a first-second area disposed on the other side of the base; the first unit is disposed at the one side of the base to push and bend the first-first area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-first area; and the second unit is disposed at the other side of the base to push and bend the first-second area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-second area”. However, as set forth in a separate rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b) hereinabove, it is unclear as claimed how many of the previously-recited clamp(s), peeling cutter(s), and driver(s) are intended to be required, i.e., each of the first and second units has a respective clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, for a total of two clamps, two peeling cutters, and two drivers, or, as the claim actually says, each of the first and second units has “the” previously-recited clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, such that each of the first and second units shares the previously-recited (one) clamp, (one) peeling cutter, and (one) driver. In the event that the former is intended, it is noted that such is not what the claim actually says, and it is further unclear (if the former is intended) how the one clamp, one peeling cutter, and one driver that were previously recited would be configured with the two units, i.e., it is unclear what relationships/features of these elements from claim 1 would be required for each of the first and second units. In the event that the latter is intended, it is unclear how or in what regard a singular clamp, peeling cutter, and driver are to be able to be simultaneously disposed on opposite sides of the base (as recited in claim 13) and operate (re the first and second units in the last four lines of claim 13) as claimed. In particular, the specification as filed does not describe the invention as set forth in claim 13 in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof, particularly regarding what is actually claimed regarding one clamp 200, one peeling cutter 300, and one driver 400 belonging to both the first (A; Figure 2) and second (B; Figure 2) units.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 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.
In particular, in claim 13¸ the claim sets forth “wherein a first unit and a second unit each including the clamp, the peeling cutter, and the driver are provided; the first area includes a first-first area disposed on one side of the base and a first-second area disposed on the other side of the base; the first unit is disposed at the one side of the base to push and bend the first-first area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-first area; and the second unit is disposed at the other side of the base to push and bend the first-second area and, simultaneously, peel a protective film of at least a portion of the first-second area”. However, as noted in a separate rejection of the claim under 35 USC 112(b) set forth hereinabove, it is unclear as claimed how many of the previously-recited clamp(s), peeling cutter(s), and driver(s) are intended to be required, i.e., each of the first and second units has a respective clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, for a total of two clamps, two peeling cutters, and two drivers, or, as the claim actually says, each of the first and second units has “the” previously-recited clamp, peeling cutter, and driver, such that each of the first and second units shares the previously-recited (one) clamp, (one) peeling cutter, and (one) driver. In the event that the former is intended, it is noted it is would thus appear that claim 13 is attempting to redefine the clamp, peeling cutter, and driver of claim 1 as two clamps, peeling cutters, and drivers in claim 13 (rather than including the clamp, peeling cutter, and driver of claim 1 and then reciting an additional clamp, peeling cutter, and driver). Thus, it would appear that claim 13 does not properly further limit claim 1.
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 1-5 and 11, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”).
Balmer teaches an apparatus for “bending” and peeling a connector ribbon (ribbon cable 88 of Balmer) on which a protective film (such as insulation 152; see col. 4, lines 42-53, col. 3, lines 6-14, as well as Figures 5-8, for example) is laminated, the apparatus comprising:
a clamp (84; Figures 1-5 and 10, col. 3, lines 6-9, and col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 20, for example; alternatively, 40 and/or 42, see Figures 1-7 and 9 and col. 2, lines 8-32) configured to fix a second area (e.g., the area of 88 that is clamped by 84, or alternatively, the area of 88 that is clamped by 40 and/or 42) of the connector ribbon (88) excluding a first area thereof (e.g., an area of 88 that is outside of clamp 84, or alternatively, an area of 88 that is outside of clamp 40 and/or 42);
a peeling cutter (including, for example, upper mounting block 38, as well as cutters 44, 46, and optionally including elements 40, 42, re claim 1, such as including 40, 42 when 84 is considered the clamp; see Figures 1-7 and col. 2, lines 8-15, as well as col. 4, lines 43-63, and col. 5, lines 10-30, for example) disposed at one side of the (aforedescribed) first area (see Figures 1-7); and
a driver (22, labeled in Fig. 11) configured to move the peeling cutter (38+44+46 or alternatively, when 84 is the clamp, peeling cutter 38+44+46+40+42) (see at least col. 1, lines 51-63 and col. 2, lines 8-14, col. 4, lines 59-65, and col. 5, lines 42-65, noting that the motor 22 operates the punch press to move plate 16 towards and away from plate 12, and noting that upper mounting block 38 is secured to the lower surface of plate 16 and carries the elements 46, 44, such that when 22 moves 16 up and down, resultantly, the aforedescribed peeling cutter moves up and down),
wherein the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter moves (i.e., is capable of moving) to come in contact with the (aforedescribed) first area (of the ribbon cable 88) and, while pushing and bending (which pushing and bending is shown in Figures 5-6, for example) the first area, peels the protective film (152) of at least a portion of the first area. See Figures 5-6 and col. 4, lines 42-62 and col. 5, lines 10-30, for example.
Regarding claim 2, the (aforedescribed) first area (of the ribbon cable 88) is “disposed in a horizontal direction” (for example, the first area of 88 has a horizontal dimension, such as in the left/right horizontal direction re Figures 2-7, for example);
the driver (22) moves the peeling cutter in an up-down direction (as discussed above; see also col. 1, lines 51-63, col. 2, lines 8-14, col. 4, lines 59-65, and col. 5, lines 42-65, as well as Figures 2-7); and
the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter is disposed to be “tilted” relative to the first area (as broadly claimed; see, for example, at least Figures 1-7 noting that the vertical axis of movement of the peeling cutter 38+44+46, or alternatively, 38+44+46+40+42 when 84 is the clamp, is at an angle to/“tilted” relative to, for example, a horizontal left/right re Figures 2-7 direction in which the ribbon cable 88 extends; such is but one example of a way in which the Balmer reference meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, the (aforedescribed) peeling cutter includes a body (such as, for example, one of 44 or 46) connected to (at least via intervening structure such as plate 16) the driver (22) (see at least col. 1, lines 51-68) and a cutter blade (such as the other of 44 or 46; e.g., where 44 constitutes the claimed “body”, then 46 constitutes the cutter blade; alternatively, where 46 constitutes the claimed “body”, then 44 constitutes the claimed cutter blade) configured to extend from the (aforedescribed) body (see Figures 1-7, for example);
the (aforedescribed) cutter blade (either of 44 or 46) includes a first surface (either of S11 or S12, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 7 below, re cutting blade 44; alternatively, either of S21 or S22, labeled below, re cutting blade 46) and a second surface (the other of S12 or S11 re blade 44, alternatively, the other of S22 or S21 re blade 46) configured to form an edge (either E1 re 44 labeled below in the annotated reproduction of Figure 7, at the intersection of S11 and S12, or alternatively, E2 re blade 46, labeled below, at the intersection of S21 and S22) of the cutter blade; and
the (aforedescribed) first surface and the (aforedescribed) second surface are “disposed in” a direction inclined relative to the horizontal direction (see the annotated reproduction of Figure 7 below).
[AltContent: textbox (S22)][AltContent: textbox (S21)]
[AltContent: textbox (E1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (S12)][AltContent: textbox (S11)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (E2)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
266
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the edge (either of E1 or E2, described previously) of the cutter blade (either of 44 or 46) is disposed to be spaced apart from the body (the other of 46, 44) in the horizontal direction. See Figures 5-7, for example.
Regarding claim 5, the peeling cutter (such as 38+44+46+40+42) includes a plurality of ribs (the teeth 52 of element 42; see Figures 1 and 5-7, as well as at least col. 2, lines 8-32, for example) configured to protrude from the first surface (such as the first surface S12; see annotated Figure 7 above, as well as Figures 5-6 and 1, noting that the teeth/ribs 52 of element 42 protrude towards the left re Figures 5-7 from surface S12).
Regarding claim 11, the clamp (such as 40 and/or 42) is (ultimately, via intervening structure) “connected to” the (aforedescribed) driver (22) and moves vertically (when 16 is moved vertically; see Figures 2-7, for example; see also col. 2, lines 8-32 and col 4, lines 32-42, for example);
the apparatus further comprises a groove (50) configured to accommodate the connector ribbon (88) and a base (such as 30) connected to the groove (50) and including a seating portion (the recessed portions of 30 in which the elements 40, 42 are received when 40, 42 are lowered to perform clamping, as shown in Figures 3-6 and 9; see also col. 2, lines 8-32 and col. 4, lines 7-20, for example) on which the clamp (40 and/or 42) is seated (as can be seen in Figures 3-6 and 10); and
the clamp (40 and/or 42) fixes the connector ribbon (88) in a state in which the clamp (40 and/or 42) is seated on the (aforedescribed) seating portion. See Figures 3-6 and 9, as well as col. 2, lines 8-32 and col. 4, lines 7-20, for example, and particularly col. 2, lines 29-32.
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.
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Balmer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, it is noted that Balmer teaches that leads (tubes) 100 and 102 are used to provide an air blast in order to clear the stripped portion 152 of the cable end 86 from the cutter tooling (such as via nozzles 104 re lead 102, and via not-illustrated nozzles re lead 100; note that the nozzles 104 are adjacent to the cutter blades 44, 46, as can be seen in at least Figures 2 and 7), and eject the stripped portion from the machine. See col. 5, lines 40-56, as well as col. 3, lines 25-31 and 51-56, for example, as well as at least Figures 1-7.
That said, Balmer teaches the use of air blast (i.e., positive pressure) to clean/remove the stripped protective film 152 from the first area, rather than teaching the use of suction/negative pressure to remove the stripped protective film from the first area. Thus, regarding claim 8, Balmer does not expressly teach “a suction unit to which a suction tube is connected, wherein the suction tube is disposed adjacent to the cutter blade to allow the suction unit to suction the protective film peeled from the first area”.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of suction (through a tube) to remove waste such as stripped protective film is well-known and widely used, and is a well-known type of cleaning arrangement that functions similarly to the provision of positive pressure, but that has (as is well-known) a vacuum or suction/negative pressure source attached to the tube instead of a blower/positive pressure source, whose benefits are also well-known (e.g., removes the undesirable debris in a way that does not potentially create more mess).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a well-known negative pressure source/suction for the positive pressure source (present in Balmer) and attached to the tubes/leads 100/102, as is well-known, for the purpose of providing an alternative well-known arrangement for removing the stripped protective film 152 that has the well-known benefit of removing the undesirable debris in a manner that does not create more mess (i.e., the mess created by “blowing” the debris around).
Claim 10, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 3,706,241 to Balmer et al. (hereinafter, “Balmer”) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0369271 to Mitchell et al. (hereinafter, “Mitchell”).
Balmer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
However, Balmer does not expressly teach a vision device re claim 10.
However, Mitchell teaches that it is known to include (in a wire processing module 110 that includes an insulation stripper module 112 and a stripper inspection module 114) a wire strip quality-assurance camera to inspect each wire end to ensure appropriate removal of the insulation layer (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the wire processing apparatus (that performs stripping/peeling, as discussed in detail above) taught by Balmer with an the stripper inspection module that includes a wire strip quality-assurance camera (i.e., “vision device”) as taught by Mitchell, for the purpose of enhancing the quality of the produced workpieces of Balmer’s apparatus by facilitating quality assurance inspections to ensure the appropriate removal of the insulation layer, as taught by Mitchell (see Mitchell, paragraph 0078, for example). Note that resultantly, Balmer in view of Mitchell (i.e., “Balmer/Mitchell”) comprises a vision device (the wire strip quality-assurance camera taught by Mitchell) that is considered to be “disposed behind” the clamp (84) taught by Balmer no matter where the vision device is located, as broadly claimed, which vision device is considered to be capable of performing the claimed function of “obtaining an image of a peeled area of the first area from which the protective film is removed”, noting that Mitchell teaches that the vision device is a wire strip quality-assurance “camera”.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 6-7, 9, 12, and 13, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 6-7, 9, 12, and 13 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a) and/or 35 USC 112(d), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a) and (d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
February 3, 2026