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 .
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
After search the prior art regarded as nearest the claimed invention is Diegel (US4211598A – hereinafter Diegel 1). Diegel 1 discloses a glass edge foiler apparatus (title, abstract) comprising: a base (Fig. 11 showing a base of dispenser 55); a foil tape roll holder configured to hold a roll of foil tape, the foil tape having a non-adhesive side, an adhesive side, and a backing thereon (col 1 ln 19-36, Fig. 11); a pressure applicator module comprising first and second legs extending vertically from the base, wherein the pair of legs are configured to flex away from each other (col 4 ln 47-col 5 ln 25 disclosing attaching the applicator to the frame as shown in Fig. 11; See Fig. 1 showing first and second “legs” extending from the base as the vertically protruding section of the arm. The legs extend vertically from the base within the broadest reasonable interpretation as the claim does not require the legs be in direct contact with the base; col. 3 ln 15-31 disclosing the “legs” and arms are formed of a flexible plastic); a first horizontally disposed arm extending from the first leg and a second horizontally disposed arm extending from the second leg, wherein the first horizontally disposed arm and the second horizontally disposed arm form a space configured to receive a plate of glass (col 4 ln 47-49 disclosing the arms are resilient, col 3 ln 59-col 4 ln 7 and Fig. 5 disclosing the arms form a space configured to receive a plate of glass); a foil track module having a first track (Fig. 11), and the pressure applicator module and flexible arms are laterally separated (see Fig. 11). Diegel 1, and the remaining prior art available, fails to teach wherein the first track and second track are disposed on a laterally-moving tower extension, wherein the tower extension is configured to move laterally between a first position and a second position, wherein when the tower extension is in the first position, the first track is disposed beneath the first and second arms and further wherein when the tower extension is in the second position, the second track is disposed beneath the first and second arms (claim 13, also applies to dependent claims 15, 16, 17) or wherein the first track, the second track, and the third track are disposed on a laterally-moving tower extension, wherein the laterally-moving tower extension is configured to move laterally between a first position, a second position, and a third position, wherein when the tower extension is in the first position, the first track is disposed beneath the first and second arms and wherein when the tower extension is in the second position, the second track is disposed beneath the first and second arms, and further wherein when the tower extension is in the third position, the third track is disposed beneath the first and second arms (claim 18, also applies to dependent claim 20). The Office is unable to discern a reasonable rationale from the prior art that such features are taught, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the third track and individually” in line 2 should read -the third track are individually-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel (US4211598A – hereinafter Diegel 1) in view of Harrison (US4274904A).
In reference to claim 1:
Diegel 1 discloses a glass edge foiler apparatus (title, abstract) comprising:
a base (Fig. 11 showing a base of dispenser 55);
a foil tape roll holder configured to hold a roll of foil tape, the foil tape having a non-adhesive side, an adhesive side, and a backing thereon (col 1 ln 19-36, Fig. 11);
a pressure applicator module comprising first and second legs extending vertically from the base, wherein the pair of legs are configured to flex away from each other (col 4 ln 47-col 5 ln 25 disclosing attaching the applicator to the frame as shown in Fig. 11; See Fig. 1 showing first and second “legs” extending from the base as the vertically protruding section of the arm. The legs extend vertically from the base within the broadest reasonable interpretation as the claim does not require the legs be in direct contact with the base; col. 3 ln 15-31 disclosing the “legs” and arms are formed of a flexible plastic);
a first horizontally disposed arm extending from the first leg and a second horizontally disposed arm extending from the second leg, wherein the first horizontally disposed arm and the second horizontally disposed arm form a space configured to receive a plate of glass (col 4 ln 47-49 disclosing the arms are resilient, col 3 ln 59-col 4 ln 7 and Fig. 5 disclosing the arms form a space configured to receive a plate of glass);
a foil track module having a first track (Fig. 11).
Diegel 1 discloses the pressure applicator module and flexible arms are laterally separated (see Fig. 11) and does not disclose wherein the first track is beneath the first and second arms configured to receive foil tape from the roll of foil tape in the foil tape roll holder or wherein the first and second arms are configured to maintain an edge of the plate of glass in alignment adjacent the adhesive side of the foil tape. However, this would have been obvious in view of Harrison. Harrison teaches a glass edge foiler apparatus (abstract). Harrison further teaches performing the adhesion and crimping operations simultaneously and in-line with the foil tape roll (col 2 ln 52-59, Fig. 1-2 and 5A-5B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the arms of Diegel 1 in line with the roll holder, as taught by Harrison, in order to obtain a glass edge foiler apparatus which adheres and crimps the foil tape in a single operation.
In reference to claims 2, 3, and 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Diegel 1 discloses the application of the adhesively backed foil to the edge of the work piece can be accomplished in any convenient manner and describes a foil dispenser that automatically unreels the foil, removes a protective covering, and applies the flat foil. Diegel 1 does not explicitly disclose a top surface configured to allow the non-adhesive side of the foil tape to travel thereover (claim 2), a foil tape backing splitter disposed over the top surface, wherein the foil tape backing splitter is configured to separate the backing from the adhesive side of the foil tape when the foil tapes travels over the top surface (claim 3), or wherein the foil tape backing splitter is rotatable from a first position adjacent the top surface of the first tower to a second position over the top surface of the first tower (claim 4). However, this would have been obvious in view of Harrison. Harrison teaches a glass edge foiler apparatus (abstract). Harrison further teaches an apparatus similar to that described in Diegel 1 having a top surface configured to allow the non-adhesive side of the foil to travel thereover (Fig. 1 showing a top surface within stripper assembly 42).
Modified Diegel 1 does not disclose a first tower extending adjacent the foil tape roll holder having the top surface configured to allow the non-adhesive side of the foil tape travel thereover. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to that skilled artisan to change the profile of the dispenser frame because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Claim(s) 5, 8-12, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel 1 and Harrison as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Diegel (US4240867A – hereinafter Diegel 2).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Diegel 1 does not disclose wherein the foil tape roll holder is configured to hold rolls of foil tape having different widths. However, this is taught by Diegel 2. Diegel 2 teaches a glass edge foiler apparatus (abstract). Diegel 2 further teaches that the foil width may be chosen to accommodate the width of the workpiece and that it would be convenient to provide ready access to foil of different widths without having to remove a roll of foil already mounted to the apparatus (col 5 ln 12-26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of modified Diegel 1 with the foil tape roll holder of Diegel 2 in order to obtain an apparatus which provides ready access to foil of different widths without having to remove a roll of foil already mounted to the apparatus.
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Diegel 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the first track comprises a roller but does explicitly disclose the initial application of the foil can be accomplished by using the method and apparatus described in Diegel 2. Diegel 2 discloses further discloses wherein the first track comprises a roller (Fig. 1 numerals 40 and 48). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a roller, as taught by Diegel 2, in the first track of Diegel 1 because Diegel 1 explicitly discloses the use of the apparatus of Diegel 2.
In reference to claims 9, 10, and 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Diegel 1 does not disclose wherein the foil track module comprises a second track, wherein the first track and the second track are individually selectable (claim 9), wherein the first track comprises a first roller and the second track comprises a second roller (claim 10), or wherein the first track has a first width and the second track has a second width, wherein the first width and the second width are different (claim 14). However, this is taught by Diegel 2. Diegel 2 teaches a glass edge foiler apparatus (abstract). Diegel 2 further teaches that the foil width may be chosen to accommodate the width of the workpiece and that it would be convenient to provide ready access to foil of different widths without having to remove a roll of foil already mounted to the apparatus by mounting foil on either side of the apparatus with a selectable second track by providing tracks of separate widths(col 5 ln 4-26) and wherein the first track comprises a first roller and the second track comprises a second roller (col 5 ln 12-26). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of modified Diegel 1 with the foil tape roll holder of Diegel 2 in order to obtain an apparatus which provides ready access to foil of different widths without having to remove a roll of foil already mounted to the apparatus.
In reference to claims 11, 12, and 19:
In addition to the discussion of claim 9, above, modified Diegel 1 does not explicitly disclose wherein the foil track module comprises a third track, wherein the first track, the second track, and the third track and individually selectable (claim 11), wherein the first track comprises a first roller, the second track comprises a second roller, and the third track comprises a third roller (claim 12), or wherein the first track, the second track, and the third track each have different widths to accommodate a first foil tape having a first width, a second foil tape having a second width, and a third foil tape having a third width respectively (claim 13). However, as discussed in reference to claim 9, above, Diegel 2 teaches that foil width may be chosen to accommodate the width of the workpiece and that it would be convenient to provide ready access to foil of different widths without having to remove a roll of foil already mounted and each mount has a separate track and separate rollers (col 5 ln 4-26). Therefore, it would have been further obvious to add additionally mounting options and tracks in order to obtain an apparatus capable of providing the convenience of ready access to further foil widths.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel 1 and Harrison as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Soyad (US20050284583A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Diegel 1 does not disclose a latch configured to rotate from an unlatched position and a latched position, such that when the latch is in the latched position, it is configured to hold the roll of foil tape within the foil tape roll holder. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, this would have been obvious in view of Soyad. Soyad teaches an apparatus for dispensing adhesive tape (abstract). Soyad further teaches using a latch configured to rotated from an unlatched position to a latched position such that when the latch is in the latched position it is configured to hold the roll of tape (spool retainer 40, paras 0011 and 0013; the spool retainer 40 will rotate into the unlatched position as a new roll is pressed into place or when pressed inward to remove a spent spool). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the roll retention of Soyad for the roll retention of modified Diegel 1 because each of the elements are known in the art and the substitution yields predictable results, e.g. the tape roll is held by a mechanism known in the art for holding tape rolls while allowing rotation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diegel 1 and Harrison as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of BYJU’S (Rolling Friction).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Diegel 1 does not teach wherein the first arm comprises a first roller and the second arm comprises a second roller, wherein the first roller and the second roller are configured to roll against the glass plate when the glass plate is pushed between the first arm and the second arm. However, this would have been obvious in view of BYJU’S. BYJU’S using rollers to significantly reduces friction compared to sliding an object across a solid surface (pg 1 section titled “What Is Rolling Friction” and the first two figures of page 2). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of modified Diegel 1 with the rollers of BYJU’S in order to obtain an apparatus with reduced friction between the glass and the arms.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kusek (US3155301A)
Scalia (US4115180A)
Chang (US7641087B2)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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 L SWANSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights