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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 over telephone interview on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshio et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0232629 A1) (hereinafter Koshio).
Regarding claim 1, Koshio discloses lamination control apparatus comprising: a supply portion configured to supply film lamination (1) (Fig. 1) including a peeling member (2) (Fig. 1) and a sticker (3) (Fig. 2) capable of being peeled off form the peeling member;
a driving roller (82) (Fig. 1) (corresponding to first roller) configured to feed the film lamination supplied form the supply portion (Fig. 1 R1) to a peeling station (Fig. 1, RC 100) where the sticker (3) (Fig. 2) is peeled off form the peeling member (2) (Fig. 1); a first rotary driving portion configured to rotate the driving roller (82) is naturally disclosed (¶0066).
a driving roller (83) (Fig.2) (corresponding to second roller ) to convey the peeling member from which the sticker member has been peeled off at the peeling station (100) (Fig. 1); a second rotary driving portion configured to rotate the driving roller (83) (¶0066).
a rotating drum (70) (Fig. 3) around which the sticker (3) peeled off the peeling position is windable (Fig. 3); a third rotary driving portion configured to rotate the rotating drum (70) (¶0069).
Koshio further discloses an operation flow of the manufacturing process throughout the application, which controls feeding, conveying and winding operation (¶0066). Koshio is silent about individually controlling the speed of feeding, conveyance and winding. However, operation complex as this would naturally require the speed to be controlled individually to assure smooth operation maintain tension in supply chain.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to configure the controller to individually control the rollers (82, 83 and 70) during manufacturing process to assure smooth operation and maintain tension in supply chain.
Claim(s) 2, 3-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshio as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsuda et al. (US Pat. No.: 6,852,186 B1) (hereinafter Matsuda).
Regarding claim 2, limitations of claim 1 are taught by Koshio as cited above. Koshio is silent about limitations of claim 2.
Matsuda also discloses adhesive tape attachment apparatus. The apparatus discloses a robot apparatus including attaching means (30) (corresponding to end effector), attaching roller (31) (corresponding to third roller) and a robot body (100) (Fig. 2b) to which the attaching means it attached. Matsuda further discloses the process is automated throughout the application; thus a controller is naturally taught. Matsuda further discloses the sticker (2) is wounded around the attaching roller (31). Matsuda discloses the sticker is conveyed on conveyor belt and wound around roller (31) in a state in which a length of the sticker is smaller than a movement distance of attaching means (Col 6, Ln 48- Col 7, Ln 20). The benefit of using robotic arm would be to allow the adhesive tape material to be maneuver the tape in different directions prior to application and apply adequate pressure during application process.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use robotic arm as taught by Matsuda within the apparatus as taught by Koshio. The benefit of doing so would have been to allow the sticker to be maneuvered to further distance from peeling station and allow application of adequate pressure during manufacture process.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuda discloses controller is configured to wind the sticker member around the third roller in a state in which a posture of the robot body is maintained (Fig. 1; Col 6, Ln 48-62).
Regarding claims 4-6, Matsuda discloses the use of plate-like spring (32) to prevent excessive force of the attaching roller (31) acting on the conveyor belt (Col 7, Ln 20-25) and prevent the plate-lie body for damage during sticker application process (Col 8, Ln11-22). Matsuda further discloses adhesive tape pieces come into tight contact with the outer circumferential surface of the attaching roller are attached one by one and little by little with the rotational movement of the roller, it is possible to attach the adhesive tape pieces to a member to be attached without producing bubbles or wrinkles (Col 8, Ln 28-33). Thus, the rotations speed is important to prevent formation of bubbles and wrinkles formation during application. The compressive force is equally important to assure the conveyor and plate-like body (final product) is not damaged during application. Additionally, if the roller speed is not controlled in accordance to type or thickness the sticker can tear during uptake or application process.
Give the wealth of knowledge, a person of ordinary skill can/must adjust the speed and compressive rate of third roller to prevent formation of bubble or wrinkles and assure the product is not damaged during sticker application process. Furthermore, to prevent the sticker for tearing during manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda disclose the attaching unit (31) includes axial direction moving portion (5) configured to move the roller (31) in an axial direction; and wherein the controller is configured to move the roller (31) in the axial direction by the axial direction moving portion in synchronization with rotation of the roller (31), and thus spirally wind the sticker member around the roller (31) (Fig. 1-2B; Col 6, Ln 48-62).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuda discloses the supply apparatus incudes a slitting position (R3) configured to cut the sticker member to a length for supply to peeling station without cutting the peeling member (Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koshio and Matsuda as applied to claims 2, 3-7 and 12 above, and further in view of Takamitsu Tadera (WO 2015/045646) (hereinafter Tadera).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 2 are taught by the combined teaching of Koshio and Matsuda. Koshio further discloses the use of holding device (50) to apply tension near the peeling station (¶0032; Fig. 2). However, they are both silent about dancer roller configured to apply tension near the peeling station.
Tadera also discloses tape application apparatus. The apparatus discloses the use of dancing rollers (33-35) to apply tension to the tape at the peeling station (101) (Fig. 2). The dancing rollers are able to apply predetermined tension during peeling operation.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the dancing rollers as taught by Tadera within the apparatus as taught by the combined teaching of Koshio and Matsuda. The benefit of doing so would have been to allow for more control of how much tension is applied to tape membrane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746