DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/553,960 filed on October 4, 2023 in which claims 1-14 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending, of which claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101; claims 13 or 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2); and claims 5, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 15, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, 365(c), or 371 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, this claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite, when considered individually or as a whole, a computer program for generating a mathematical model.
The limitations “receiving a plurality of input variables, an input variable of the plurality of input variables corresponding to at least one of an adhesive and a substrate to be used in a tape application process; performing an analysis of input variables and output variables generated during a test of the tape application process to generate a predictive data model” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of these limitations in the mind and/or “by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human can look at a series of input data and tested data about tape application and generate a mental representation (i.e., a model) of that data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim merely recite the additional element “storing the predictive data model.” This merely describes an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Hansen, Daniel, et al. “Performance of Polymeric Skin Adhesives during Perspiration.” ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2.4 (2020): 1535-1542, as discussed in the rejection below.
Additionally, the act of storing the predictive data model is not “something more” because it is also merely instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, and 7-9, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely define various types of input variables, which are part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely further defines the predictor, which is part of the abstract idea.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely requires generating a recommendation for a remedial action, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Khoche, US Publication 2019/0340483, as discussed in the rejection below.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, this claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, this claim merely requires feeding input values generated by the process as feedback data in order to adjust the data model, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Lekivetz et al., US Publication 2020/0117580, as discussed in the rejection below.
Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, these claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually or as a whole. For example, these claims merely require displaying various aspects of the simulation process, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, this is not a “practical application.” Additionally, this is not “something more” because it is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity that cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) and Lekivetz et al., US Publication 2020/0117580, as discussed in the rejection below.
Additionally, the act of displaying data is not “something more” because it is also merely instructions to “apply it.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, as discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) below, these claims are being interpreted to be equivalent in scope to claim 1 and are, therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. These claims are omnibus type claims. For purposes of examination, these claims shall be interpreted as an apparatus and a method, respectively, for performing the steps of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hansen, Daniel, et al. “Performance of Polymeric Skin Adhesives during Perspiration.” ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2.4 (2020): 1535-1542. (hereinafter Hansen).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions that, when implemented on a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Hansen 1537) by disclosing that the evaluation is performed by an Instron 5943 Universal testing system, which is known to include these features. Additionally, Hansen discloses “including: receiving a plurality of input variables, an input variable of the plurality of input variables corresponding to at least one of an adhesive and a substrate to be used in a tape application process” (Hansen 1536) where the simulator allows for variables such as “sweat rate, the hydrostatic pressure upon artificial sweat pore occlusion, sweat composition, and sweat pore density” to be controlled (i.e., input). Finally, Hansen discloses “performing an analysis of input variables and output variables generated during a test of the tape application process to generate a predictive data model; and storing the predictive data model” (Hansen 1536-1537, § 2.3 Perspiration Simulator) where the simulations are performed in accordance with the variables and used to generate a linear model of the variable against the output as shown in Fig. 1(c).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the input variables further include information identifying a predictor for success of the tape application process” (Hansen 1540-1541, § 4. CONCLUSION) where an example is giving of identifying the presence of absorbing adhesives as a predictor for success of the tape application process.
Regarding claim 3, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the input variables include indication of a predictor, and wherein the predictor includes a peel adhesion test.” (Hansen 1537, § 2.3.1. Peel Test).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the predictor includes a 90-degree peel test.” (Hansen 1537, § 2.3.1. Peel Test).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the input variables indicate a substrate type” (Hansen 1537) where various variables are input for the skin substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the input variables include indicators for at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polycarbonate, stainless steel, aluminum, paint, nylon, and glass” (Hansen 1536, § 2.3 Perspiration Simulator) where indicators of polycarbonate are included.
Regarding claim 9, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the input variables include at least one of adhesive physical characteristics, adhesive thermal characteristics, adhesive electrical characteristics, adhesive curing characteristics, adhesive performance characteristics, adhesive durability characteristics, adhesive chemical resistance characteristics, adhesive rheological characteristics, adhesive viscosity, adhesive setting time, adhesive modulus of elasticity, adhesive solvent resistance, adhesive composition, adhesive dispensing characteristics, adhesive use requirements, standardized tests or certifications, environmental parameters, backing characteristics, liner characteristics, and substrate characteristics” (Hansen 1536, § 2.2.1 Rheology) where adhesive rheological characteristics are input.
Regarding claim 13, it merely recites an apparatus for performing the steps of claim 1. The apparatus comprises computer modules for performing the various functions. Hansen comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 13 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it merely recites a method for performing the steps of claim 1. The method comprises execution of computer software modules for performing the various functions. Hansen comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 14 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Khoche, US Publication 2019/0340483 (hereinafter Khoche).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the operations further including generating a recommendation for remedial action of the tape application process.”
However, Khoche discloses a system for simulating tape adhesion (Khoche ¶ 64), “wherein the operations further including generating a recommendation for remedial action of the tape application process” (Khoche ¶ 77) in the form of having the automated system select (i.e., a remedial action) the appropriate tape type.
Hansen and Khoche are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of tape simulation.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hansen and Khoche before him or her to modify the tape simulation system of Hansen to include the remedial action of Khoche.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Hansen teaches the “base device” for simulating the use of adhesive tape under various circumstances. Further, Khoche teaches the “known technique” suggesting a remedial action in the form of selecting the best tape for the situation that is applicable to the base device of Hansen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 8, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the input variables indicate a tape type.”
However, Khoche discloses a system for simulating tape adhesion “wherein the input variables indicate a tape type” (Khoche ¶ 64) where the input variables includes types of layers, including cover (i.e., tape) layers.
Hansen and Khoche are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of tape simulation.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hansen and Khoche before him or her to modify the tape simulation system of Hansen to include the tape input variables of Khoche.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Hansen teaches the “base device” for simulating tape adhesion. Further, Khoche teaches the “known technique” for including input variables representing the tape types that is applicable to the base device of Hansen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Lekivetz et al., US Publication 2020/0117580 (hereinafter Lekivetz).
Regarding claim 10, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen discloses “wherein the operations further including feeding input values generated by the tape application process as feedback data the processor for adjusting the predictive data model.”
However, Lekivetz discloses a simulation system “wherein the operations further including feeding input values generated by the … process as feedback data the processor for adjusting the predictive data model” (Lekivetz ¶ 163) by performing the simulations using a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand operates in the claimed manner.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Lekivetz was combined with Hansen, the RNN of Lekivetz would be used with the data of Hansen. Therefore, the combination of Hansen and Lekivetz at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “wherein the operations further including feeding input values generated by the tape application process as feedback data the processor for adjusting the predictive data model,” rendering it obvious.
Hansen and Lekivetz are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of simulation systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hansen and Lekivetz before him or her to modify the simulation of Hansen to include the use of an RNN in the simulation of Lekivetz.
The motivation for doing so would have been that RNNs are well-known to provide more accurate results in many situation due to maintaining context in the analysis through the process or feeding the values back into the system.
Regarding claim 11, Hansen discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hansen does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the operations further include outputting at least one of the input variables to a display.”
However, Lekivetz discloses a simulation system “wherein the operations further include outputting at least one of the input variables to a display” (Lekivetz ¶ 249, Fig. 19) where a graphical user interface is shown that displays factors (i.e., input variables).
Hansen and Lekivetz are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of simulation systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hansen and Lekivetz before him or her to modify the simulation of Hansen to include the use of a display in the simulation of Lekivetz.
The motivation for doing so would have been that it is widely recognized in the art that displaying simulated data to a user is advantageous because it allows the user to verify the processes.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hansen and Lekivetz discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Hansen and Lekivetz discloses “wherein the operations further include generating and displaying a simulation of the tape application process based on at least one of the input variables” (Lekivetz ¶ 249, Fig. 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Xia et al., US Publication 2011/0159241, System and method for simulating adhesion of different types of tape.
Yuji et al., US Publication 2017/0165918, System and method for simulating adhesion force.
Hansen et al., US Publication 2024/0016651, Method for simulating adhesion using the simulator of Hansen, Daniel, et al. “Performance of Polymeric Skin Adhesives during Perspiration.” ACS Applied Polymer Materials 2.4 (2020): 1535-1542.
De Keyzer et al., US Patent 7,202,297, System and method for simulating tape adhesion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662