DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 and 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.
Claims 1 and 13 each recite, in relevant part,
Determine a set of peeling parameters based on …. one or more situational conditions associated with the location of the object surface and the tape;
Taken at face value, the term “situational conditions” is incredibly broad and could potentially encompass virtually any condition. The specification provides no limitation on what a “situational condition” may be, and does not describe how a peeling parameter may be determined from a situational condition. As amended, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the metes and bounds of the invention. For these reasons, the claims are indefinite.
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(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerdsmann (DE 102019215943 A1) in view of Hu (Humidity effect on polyimide film adhesion).
Claim 1
Gerdsmann teaches
providing a robot including an end-effector, the end-effector comprising a gripping mechanism and a force sensor;
initializing the robot to position the end-effector with respect to the tape on the object surface;
gripping, via the gripping mechanism, an end of the tape;
(Gerdsmann - [0013] … In the simplest case, the unmasking device can essentially be formed by a receiving device that is movable or is attached to an end effector of a robot, for example a multi-axis industrial robot. However the unmasking device can also be a complex electromechanical system which uses force sensors and/or torque sensors to determine tensile force acting on the paint protection film …
[0024] The method can be advantageously further developed by connecting the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip to a gripping aid in step a), and the gripping aid is detachably connected to the unmasking device. For the purposes of this application, a gripping aid is understood to mean a changing aid that is stored or placed at a defined location. A robot, in particular an industrial robot to which the unmasking device is preferably attached, can then grasp this gripping aid at a defined position and pick it up reliably and automatically.
[0028] … The unmasking device then grasps the material loop and creates a connection to allow the winding of the paint protection film and/or adhesive strip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gripping aid corresponds to end of the tape. The robot grasps the gripping aid to facilitate removal. Grasping at a defined position indicates positioning relative to the gripping aid.
determining a set of peeling parameters
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. The tensile force mentioned here is a specific tensile force related to the width of the adhesive strip. The width is 1 cm.
[0031] The method can be advantageously further developed by a speed at which the at least one adhesive strip is pulled off the surface of the body being between 1 m/min and 30 m/min.
[0034] The method can be advantageously further developed by peeling the at least one adhesive strip from the body at an angle α of 1° to 179°, particularly preferably at an angle between 1° and 90°, wherein the angle α is included between the surface of the body and the part of the adhesive strip peeled from the body)
EXAMINER NOTE: The tape is peeled off the surface according to force, speed, and peeling angle.
moving the end-effector along the object surface to remove the tape from the object surface according to the set of peeling parameters; and
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. The tensile force mentioned here is a specific tensile force related to the width of the adhesive strip. The width is 1 cm.
[0031] The method can be advantageously further developed by a speed at which the at least one adhesive strip is pulled off the surface of the body being between 1 m/min and 30 m/min.
[0034] The method can be advantageously further developed by peeling the at least one adhesive strip from the body at an angle α of 1° to 179°, particularly preferably at an angle between 1° and 90°, wherein the angle α is included between the surface of the body and the part of the adhesive strip peeled from the body)
EXAMINER NOTE: The tape is peeled off the surface according to force, speed, and peeling angle.
while the end-effector moves along the object surface to remove the tape, measuring, via the force sensor, a peel force;
(Gerdsmann - [0013] … In the simplest case, the unmasking device can essentially be formed by a receiving device that is movable or is attached to an end effector of a robot, for example a multi-axis industrial robot. However the unmasking device can also be a complex electromechanical system which uses force sensors and/or torque sensors to determine tensile force acting on the paint protection film … )
adjusting a movement trajectory of the end-effector to maintain a value of the peel force in a desired range;
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. )
and determining at least another peeling parameter of the set of peeling parameters based on the peel force, the at least another peeling parameter comprising at least one of a peel velocity or a peel angle.
(Gerdsmann - [0004] … If the protective film is removed improperly by a worker, the painted bodywork can become dirty by coming into contact with the painted side of the protective film, which can result in the bodywork becoming a production reject. However, color edges may also occur that do not meet the quality standards of the manufacturing process and must be laboriously reworked and corrected, if possible. This happens especially when workers pull the adhesive strip off too quickly or too forcefully, causing it to tear, or when they pull it off the body at an unfavorable angle, causing it to undercut or come into contact with the body. If you pull the paint too hard, it can even damage the paint, causing it to peel off or even chip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gerdsmann indicates that the tape may tear and damage the paint when pulled too quickly or at an unfavorable angle, thus indicating a relationship between at least force and velocity.
While Gerdsmann teaches determining a set of peeling parameters as shown above, Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach their determination based on tape type, substrate type, environmental conditions, or situational conditions (see 112b rejection above). Gerdsmann does, however, suggest that the force is determined such that it does not damage the paint, which hints at determining force based on substrate type.
(Gerdsmann - [0004] … If you pull the paint too hard, it can even damage the paint, causing it to peel off or even chip.)
Hu outlines various factors affecting peel strength of adhesive tapes, and teaches
determining a set of peeling parameters based on …
one or more environmental conditions associated with a location of the object surface and the tape,
(Hu - [p.5263, col 2, ln 20 thru p.5264, col 1, ln 3] The peel strength at various ambient humidities as a function of peeling rate is shown in Fig. 6. A linear relationship between peel strength and peeling rate on a logarithm scale are found in low-humidity conditions of 30% RH. The same results were also reported by Oh et al. [13]. With increasing ambient humidity, the peel strength decreases at the peeling rate of 5 mmmin-1. However, when the humidity is above 60% RH, in the lower peeling rate conditions, the peel strength increases with increasing ambient humidity. Figs 4 and 5 show the consistency of the results with a peeling rate of 0.5 mm min-1.)
PNG
media_image1.png
740
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of Hu's teachings regarding the effects of humidity on peel strength of tapes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize this information to control the force exerted on the tape in the system described by Gerdsmann.
Claim 2
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. As shown above, Gerdsmann further teaches
predetermining a relationship between at least some of the peeling parameters for the tape on the object surface.
(Gerdsmann - [0004] … If the protective film is removed improperly by a worker, the painted bodywork can become dirty by coming into contact with the painted side of the protective film, which can result in the bodywork becoming a production reject. However, color edges may also occur that do not meet the quality standards of the manufacturing process and must be laboriously reworked and corrected, if possible. This happens especially when workers pull the adhesive strip off too quickly or too forcefully, causing it to tear, or when they pull it off the body at an unfavorable angle, causing it to undercut or come into contact with the body. If you pull the paint too hard, it can even damage the paint, causing it to peel off or even chip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gerdsmann indicates that the tape may tear and damage the paint when pulled too quickly, too forcefully, or at an unfavorable angle, thus indicating a relationship between at least force and velocity.
Claim 4
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Gerdsmann further teaches
wherein initializing the robot comprises determining a removal path of the tape on the object surface.
(Gerdmann - [0010]The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path.
[0032] The method can be advantageously further developed in that a relative speed with which the unmasking device and the body are moved relative to each other along a travel path is between 1 m/min and 5 m/min, particularly preferably 1.5 m/min to 3 m/min. )
Claim 6
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 4 as outlined above. Gerdsmann further teaches
wherein initializing the robot further comprises providing an initial movement trajectory matching the removal path of the tape.
(Gerdmann - [0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. The tensile force mentioned here is a specific tensile force related to the width of the adhesive strip. The width is 1 cm.
[0040] In Fig. 1 b) shows the continued procedure. The body 7 is continuously transported forward in the production line, i.e. towards the front of the vehicle. This takes place at a speed of approximately 2 m/min. Simultaneously, the industrial robot 6 moves the unmasking device 4 along the surface of the body 7 while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters and pulls the adhesive strip 3 of the paint protection film 1 off the surface of the body 7.
At the same time, the removed adhesive strip 3 and the film 2 of the paint protection film 1 are wound onto the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5. A roll consisting of the paint protection film is thus formed on the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5.
[0041] The movement of the body and the movement of the unmasking device thus overlap. The robot's control system is adapted accordingly and also ensures that the rotation speed of the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5 is adjusted. The superposition of the aforementioned movements results in a relative movement between the unmasking device and the surface of the body.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The movement path is modified as the tape is peeled to ensure proper removal.
Claim 7
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Gerdsmann further teaches
wherein initializing the robot comprises locating the end of the tape on the object surface.
(Gerdsmann - [0024] The method can be advantageously further developed by connecting the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip to a gripping aid in step a), and the gripping aid is detachably connected to the unmasking device. For the purposes of this application, a gripping aid is understood to mean a changing aid that is stored or placed at a defined location. A robot, in particular an industrial robot to which the unmasking device is preferably attached, can then grasp this gripping aid at a defined position and pick it up reliably and automatically.
[0028] A gripping aid can also be a material loop formed from the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip. The unmasking device then grasps the material loop and creates a connection to allow the winding of the paint protection film and/or adhesive strip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gripping aid corresponds to end of the tape. The robot grasps the gripping aid to facilitate removal. Grasping at a defined position indicates locating the gripping aid.
Claim 8
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Gerdsmann further teaches
further comprising determining a state of the tape on the object surface.
(Gerdmann - [0040] In Fig. 1 b) shows the continued procedure. The body 7 is continuously transported forward in the production line, i.e. towards the front of the vehicle. This takes place at a speed of approximately 2 m/min. Simultaneously, the industrial robot 6 moves the unmasking device 4 along the surface of the body 7 while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters and pulls the adhesive strip 3 of the paint protection film 1 off the surface of the body 7. At the same time, the removed adhesive strip 3 and the film 2 of the paint protection film 1 are wound onto the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5. A roll consisting of the paint protection film is thus formed on the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5.
[0041] The movement of the body and the movement of the unmasking device thus overlap. The robot's control system is adapted accordingly and also ensures that the rotation speed of the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5 is adjusted. The superposition of the aforementioned movements results in a relative movement between the unmasking device and the surface of the body.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The robot adjusts speed based on relative movement of the object. To accomplish this, the robot must necessarily determine the speed of the object in order to maintain proper peeling. Speed of the object corresponds to a state of the tape, since the tape is attached to the object.
Claim 11
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 8 as outlined above. Gerdsmann further teaches
wherein determining the state comprises detecting a movement of the object surface during the removal of the tape.
(Gerdmann - [0040] In Fig. 1 b) shows the continued procedure. The body 7 is continuously transported forward in the production line, i.e. towards the front of the vehicle. This takes place at a speed of approximately 2 m/min. Simultaneously, the industrial robot 6 moves the unmasking device 4 along the surface of the body 7 while maintaining a distance of a few centimeters and pulls the adhesive strip 3 of the paint protection film 1 off the surface of the body 7. At the same time, the removed adhesive strip 3 and the film 2 of the paint protection film 1 are wound onto the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5. A roll consisting of the paint protection film is thus formed on the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5.
[0041] The movement of the body and the movement of the unmasking device thus overlap. The robot's control system is adapted accordingly and also ensures that the rotation speed of the winding aid 5 or gripping aid 5 is adjusted. The superposition of the aforementioned movements results in a relative movement between the unmasking device and the surface of the body.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The robot adjusts speed based on relative movement of the object.
Claim 12
Gerdsmann and Hu teachesthe limitations of claim 8 as outlined above. Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination:
wherein determining the state comprises determining environmental conditions including an ambient temperature and an ambient humidity.
However, Hu demonstrates that the peeling strength is affected by both temperature and relative humidity.
(Hu - [p.5263, col 2, Results and discussion] The peel strength of a 14.3 gm thick polyimide film as a function of relative humidity is shown in Fig. 4 with 0.5 mm min-1 peeling rate. … Fig. 5 shows the same relationship as in Fig. 4, but with testing procedures from high humidity to low humidity and reverse humidity conditions. These results show that the peel strength varies with humidity and this phenomenon is reproducible and independent of the testing procedures. )
PNG
media_image2.png
536
979
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Hu - [p.5265, col 1, ln 18] The variation of peel strength with temperature in a laboratory ambient was reported by Hu and Chen [21], and shown in Fig. 12.)
PNG
media_image3.png
400
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In light of Hu's teachings regarding the effects of temperature and humidity on peel strength of tapes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize this information to control the force exerted on the tape. Note that the range of preferred forces disclosed by Gerdsmann (2 N/cm to 4 N/cm), after unit conversion, lie in a similar range to the ranges shown in Figs 4-5 and fig. 12 of Hu. Note that 1 N/cm = 10.2 g/mm, so 2 N/cm to 4 N/cm corresponds to roughly 20 g/mm to 40 g/mm, which is where the highest region of temperature and humidity variations exist in the above graphs. Given this information, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to account for these variations.
Claim(s) 5, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerdsmann and Hu, and further in view of Shino (US 20150261206 A1).
Claim 5
Gerdsmann teaches the limitations of claim 4 as outlined above. Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combinatoin. However, Shino teaches
wherein determining the removal path of the tape on the object surface comprises a digital two-dimension (2D) or a digital three-dimensional (3D) model of the tape on the object surface.
(Shino - [0148] FIGS. 10E to 10H illustrate examples (part1 to part4) of an operation content setting screen. As shown in FIG. 10E, the operation content setting screen includes three of groups consisting of "position(X)", "position(Y)" and "direction" as well as a monitor area M.
[0149] The first group on the left side shows a position of the above mentioned apex P1 in x-y coordinate system and a peeling off direction from the apex Pb. Similarly, the second group in the middle shows a position of the above mentioned apex P2 in x-y coordinate system and a peeling off direction from the apex P2. The third group on the right side shows a peeling off position and a peeling off direction of the masking tape Tp that are to be finally registered.
[0151] If peeling off the masking tape downward from the apex P1, as the image with tape in the monitor area M shows that there is a lead line Ld in vicinity of the apex P1, it can be predicted that a quality of operation is degraded due to interference between a hand 21 and lead line Ld.)
EXAMINER NOTE: See Figs 10E-10H. Workpiece W and tape Tp are shown on a screen to plan the peeling path. This image in window M constitutes a two-dimensional digital model of the tape on the object surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerdsmann’s robotic system by including Shino’s user interface in order to visualize interferences during path planning.
Claim 13
Gerdsmann teaches
an end-effector comprising a gripping mechanism and a force sensor;
initialize the end-effector with respect to the tape on the object surface;
grip, via the gripping mechanism, an end of the tape;
(Gerdsmann - [0013] … In the simplest case, the unmasking device can essentially be formed by a receiving device that is movable or is attached to an end effector of a robot, for example a multi-axis industrial robot. However the unmasking device can also be a complex electromechanical system which uses force sensors and/or torque sensors to determine tensile force acting on the paint protection film …
[0024] The method can be advantageously further developed by connecting the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip to a gripping aid in step a), and the gripping aid is detachably connected to the unmasking device. For the purposes of this application, a gripping aid is understood to mean a changing aid that is stored or placed at a defined location. A robot, in particular an industrial robot to which the unmasking device is preferably attached, can then grasp this gripping aid at a defined position and pick it up reliably and automatically.
[0028] … The unmasking device then grasps the material loop and creates a connection to allow the winding of the paint protection film and/or adhesive strip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gripping aid corresponds to end of the tape. The robot grasps the gripping aid to facilitate removal. Grasping at a defined position indicates positioning relative to the gripping aid.
Determine a set of peeling parameters …
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. The tensile force mentioned here is a specific tensile force related to the width of the adhesive strip. The width is 1 cm.
[0031] The method can be advantageously further developed by a speed at which the at least one adhesive strip is pulled off the surface of the body being between 1 m/min and 30 m/min.
[0034] The method can be advantageously further developed by peeling the at least one adhesive strip from the body at an angle α of 1° to 179°, particularly preferably at an angle between 1° and 90°, wherein the angle α is included between the surface of the body and the part of the adhesive strip peeled from the body)
EXAMINER NOTE: The tape is peeled off the surface according to force, speed, and peeling angle.
move the end-effector along the object surface to remove the tape from the object surface according to the set of peeling parameters; and
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. The tensile force mentioned here is a specific tensile force related to the width of the adhesive strip. The width is 1 cm.
[0031] The method can be advantageously further developed by a speed at which the at least one adhesive strip is pulled off the surface of the body being between 1 m/min and 30 m/min.
[0034] The method can be advantageously further developed by peeling the at least one adhesive strip from the body at an angle α of 1° to 179°, particularly preferably at an angle between 1° and 90°, wherein the angle α is included between the surface of the body and the part of the adhesive strip peeled from the body)
EXAMINER NOTE: The tape is peeled off the surface according to force, speed, and peeling angle.
while the end-effector moves along the object surface to remove the tape, measure, via the force sensor, a peel force;
(Gerdsmann - [0013] … In the simplest case, the unmasking device can essentially be formed by a receiving device that is movable or is attached to an end effector of a robot, for example a multi-axis industrial robot. However the unmasking device can also be a complex electromechanical system which uses force sensors and/or torque sensors to determine tensile force acting on the paint protection film … )
adjust a movement trajectory of the end-effector to maintain a value of the peel force in a desired range; and
(Gerdsmann -[0010] The unmasking device is then designed to remove the adhesive strip. This is done by moving the unmasking device relative to the body along a travel path. The relative movement is carried out in such a way that a tensile force is exerted on the adhesive strip still stuck to the body. As a result of the tensile force acting, the adhesive strip detaches from the surface of the body (adhesive fracture).
[0011] The tensile force is designed so that it is greater than the adhesion force between the adhesive strip and the surface of the body. This causes the adhesive strip to detach from the surface of the body. At the same time, it is smaller than the cohesive force of the paint protection film and/or the cohesive force of the adhesive strip. Due to the tensile force acting, the paint protection film and/or the adhesive strip will not tear. Preferably, the tensile force exerted on the paint protection film and/or the at least one adhesive strip is in a range between 1 N/cm and 12 N/cm, preferably between 2 N/cm and 4 N/cm. )
determine at least another peeling parameter of the set of peeling parameters based on the peel force, the at least another peeling parameter comprising at least one of a peel velocity or a peel angle.
(Gerdsmann - [0004] … If the protective film is removed improperly by a worker, the painted bodywork can become dirty by coming into contact with the painted side of the protective film, which can result in the bodywork becoming a production reject. However, color edges may also occur that do not meet the quality standards of the manufacturing process and must be laboriously reworked and corrected, if possible. This happens especially when workers pull the adhesive strip off too quickly or too forcefully, causing it to tear, or when they pull it off the body at an unfavorable angle, causing it to undercut or come into contact with the body. If you pull the paint too hard, it can even damage the paint, causing it to peel off or even chip.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Gerdsmann indicates that the tape may tear and damage the paint when pulled too quickly or at an unfavorable angle, thus indicating a relationship between at least force and velocity.
Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Shino teaches
a vision system comprising one or more imaging sensors to obtain imaging data for the tape, the object surface, and the end-effector; and
(Shino - [0010] A robot system according to an aspect of an embodiment includes a display device, a camera, an identification unit, a fine adjustment unit, and an instruction unit. The camera captures an image of a workpiece with a member thereon and an image of the workpiece without the member thereon, the member being a target to be handled by a robot. The identification unit is configured to identify a position of the member on the basis of image data captured by the camera.
[0055] The camera 70 may be provided on a ceiling of the cell 2, for example. The camera may be located in vicinity of the hand 41 of the second robot 40 when the operator conducts a teaching for the second robot 40.
EXAMINER NOTE: Camera being located on the ceiling would provide image data for the effector, workpiece, and tape.
a controller functionally connected to the end-effector and the vision system, wherein the controller is configured to:
EXAMINER NOTE: See Fig.2 of Shino (annotated by Examiner using dashed lines). The controller is connected to both the camera and the hand.
PNG
media_image4.png
896
660
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While Gerdsmann teaches determining a set of peeling parameters as shown above, Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach their determination based on tape type, substrate type, environmental conditions, or situational conditions (see 112b rejection above). Gerdsmann does, however, suggest that the force is determined such that it does not damage the paint, which hints at determining force based on substrate type.
(Gerdsmann - [0004] … If you pull the paint too hard, it can even damage the paint, causing it to peel off or even chip.)
Hu outlines various factors affecting peel strength of adhesive tapes, and teaches
determine a set of peeling parameters based … one or more environmental conditions associated with a location of the object surface and the tape …
(Hu - [p.5263, col 2, ln 20 thru p.5264, col 1, ln 3] The peel strength at various ambient humidities as a function of peeling rate is shown in Fig. 6. A linear relationship between peel strength and peeling rate on a logarithm scale are found in low-humidity conditions of 30% RH. The same results were also reported by Oh et al. [13]. With increasing ambient humidity, the peel strength decreases at the peeling rate of 5 mmmin-1. However, when the humidity is above 60% RH, in the lower peeling rate conditions, the peel strength increases with increasing ambient humidity. Figs 4 and 5 show the consistency of the results with a peeling rate of 0.5 mm min-1.)
PNG
media_image1.png
740
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In light of Hu's teachings regarding the effects of humidity on peel strength of tapes, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize this information to control the force exerted on the tape in the system described by Gerdsmann. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerdsmann’s robotic tape peeling system by incorporating Shino’s vision system in order to identify the position of the tape based on image data, and to further aid in path planning (see [0148] – [0151] and Figs 10E-10H of Shino, where a UI utilizing image data is shown to aid in path planning).
Claim 14
The combination of Gerdsmann, Hu, and Shino teaches the limitations of claim 13 as outlined above. Gerdsman further teaches
further comprising a robot arm, wherein the end-effector is mounted on the robot arm.
EXAMINER NOTE: See fig. 1a-c.
PNG
media_image5.png
433
824
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 15
The combination of Gerdsmann, Hu, and Shino teaches the limitations of claim 13 as outlined above. As shown above with respect to claim 13, Shino also teaches
wherein the controller is further configured to determine a state of the tape on the object surface based on the imaging data from the vision system.
(Shino - [0010] … The identification unit is configured to identify a position of the member on the basis of image data captured by the camera. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Position of the member corresponds to a state of the tape.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerdsmann in view of Aubrey (Failure mechanisms in peeling of pressure-sensitive adhesive tape).
Claim 3
Gerdsmann teaches the limitations of claim 2 as outlined above. Gerdsmann may not teach the following limitations in combination:
wherein the predetermined relationship is between the peeling force, the peeling velocity, and the peeling angle.
Note that Gerdmann indicates that stick-slip effects can cause issues with surface finish of the body. Gerdmann may not explicitly teach a relationship between all three of peeling force, peeling velocity, and peeling angle, but Aubrey teaches that the three variables are linked when it comes to predicting the stick-slip phenomenon.
(Aubrey - [p.2203, Effect of Variation of Peel Angle] Figure 9 shows how the peel angle affects the peel strength, and affects the mechanism of failure, at two pulling rates. At the lower pulling rate (10 cm min-l), leggy cohesive separation occurred at angles of 60° and 70°, but at higher angles, up to 150°, the failure was slip-stick, with alternating cohesive and adhesive separation. A line joining the slip-stick force maxima with the peel strengths for cohesive failure at 60° and 70° is a curve very similar in shape to those obtained by Kaelble. ... At the higher pulling rate (30 cm/min), slip-stick failure with alternating cohesive and adhesive separation occurred at angles up to 80°. At 90° and above, smooth "nonleggy" adhesive separation occurred, giving a curve with a less obvious minimum than in the case of cohesive separation.)
PNG
media_image6.png
960
798
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize Aubrey's findings of the relationship between peeling force, peeling angle, and speed in Gerdsmann’s robotic system in order to effectively predict when stick-slip occurs.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerdsmann and Hu in view of Muto (JP 2002316087 A).
Claim 9
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 8 as outlined above. Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Muto teaches
wherein determining the state comprises verifying the removal of the tape from the object surface.
(Muto - [0032] … In addition, when the friction member 5 rolls up and peels off the adhesive part 3 and the double-sided adhesive tape 2, the peeling detection means 19 detects the peeling status of the adhesive part 3 and the double-sided adhesive tape 2, thereby making it possible to confirm whether or not peeling has occurred.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerdsmann’s robotic system with Muto’s suggestion to verify removal of the tape from the object surface in order to detect defects before moving to the next processing station.
(Muto - [0050] Furthermore, by providing the peeling tool with a peeling detection means that detects the peeling status of the adhesive part from the intensity of reflected light from the adherend and the adhesive part, it is possible to reliably detect whether or not the adhesive part has peeled, thereby preventing defective products from being sent to the next process.)
Claim 10
Gerdsmann and Hu teaches the limitations of claim 8 as outlined above. Gerdsmann may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Muto teaches
wherein determining the state comprises detecting a remaining portion of the tape on the object surface
(Muto - [0032] In this way, the peeling device 10 is provided with an end detection means 18 and a peel detection means 19, and when the friction member 5 of the peeling tool 4 is positioned at the end of the adhesive part 3 of the substrate 1 set on the holding table 12, the end of the adhesive part 3 can be accurately detected by detecting the edge of the image read by the end detection means 18.
Therefore, even if the attachment position of the adhesive part 3 relative to the adherend 1 is different, the friction member 5 can be accurately positioned at the end of the adhesive part 3, and the adhesive parts 3 attached to different adherends 1 can be stably peeled off, thereby increasing the versatility of the peeling device 10.
In addition, when the friction member 5 rolls up and peels off the adhesive part 3 and the double-sided adhesive tape 2, the peeling detection means 19 detects the peeling status of the adhesive part 3 and the double-sided adhesive tape 2, thereby making it possible to confirm whether or not peeling has occurred.
That is, the light-reflecting sensor of the peel detection means 19 irradiates light onto the surface of the adherend 1 after the friction member 5 has moved, detects the reflected light from the adherend 1, and compares the light intensity with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether or not the adhesive part 3 or the double-sided adhesive tape 2 remains on the surface of the adherend 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gerdsmann’s robotic system with Muto’s suggestion to detect tape which may be remaining on the object surface in order to detect defects before moving to the next processing station.
(Muto - [0050] Furthermore, by providing the peeling tool with a peeling detection means that detects the peeling status of the adhesive part from the intensity of reflected light from the adherend and the adhesive part, it is possible to reliably detect whether or not the adhesive part has peeled, thereby preventing defective products from being sent to the next process.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657