DETAILED ACTION
for
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO PERFORM LOAD MEASUREMENTS ON FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATES
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 the Claims
Regarding the status of the claims, please see the following:
Claims 21-38 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see page 6-7, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 rejections, the remarks have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 35 USC § 102 rejections remained rejected.
Applicants’ arguments, see page 6, filed 08/03/2026, with respect to the Double Patenting rejections have been fully considered, however the Double Patenting rejections stand per applicants remarks regarding a terminal disclaimer.
To benefit the Applicant, arguments will be discussed below.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant alleges that " ... Ardelean does not teach or suggest does not disclose; one or more actuators configured to move the first and second substrate support structures at respective angles to fold the flexible substrate such that the first substrate support rotates about a first stationary axis and the second substrate support rotates about a second stationary axis.".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants position.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching the examiner recognizes that ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue requires interpreting the claim language and considering both the invention and the prior art references as a whole. See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01.
The previous rejection explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that Ardelean clearly states in multiple location in the disclosure (see Ardelean [Col. 2, lines 57-60], for example) that the primary purpose of the invention is “As the cross members 14 move downward, the carts rotate about the axes of the lower bearings 19, thus apply the bending moment on the coupon 11.”
PNG
media_image1.png
599
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also see, (see Ardelean [Col. 3, lines 4-7], for example) “data from the two sensors can be used to verify the two carts are rotating in concert, which indicates the load is applied uniformly between the carts”. As explained in the attorney’s response, Ardelean teaches one way of accomplishing the goals of an actuator moving two substrates support structures. Each cart (12) encompasses a initial horizontal and vertical distances between the two bearings “cart geometry”. The previous rejection described why Ardelean discloses respective angles that folds the flexible substrate (Figs. 4a-4c).
In addition, (Figs. 4a-4c) show the carts (12) capable of being moved up or down vertically [two stationary axes] in response to an applied force being vertically pressed downward [stationary axis].
For these reasons, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. After having considered all of applicants’ arguments, the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 21 and 38 are maintained.
Claims 22-37 are indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on claim 21.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Repeated Rejection: Claims 21-28 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,803 and over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,885, 773. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Instant Application
Application 16/900,210
Application No. 16/887,960
Claim 21:
A flexible substrate testing system, comprising:
a first substrate support structure configured to hold a first portion of a flexible substrate under test;
a second substrate support structure configured to hold a second portion of the flexible substrate;
one or more actuators configured to move the first and second substrate support
structures at respective angles to fold the flexible substrate
such that the first substrate support rotates about a first stationary axis and the second substrate support rotates about a second stationary axis; and
load cells configured to measure loads on the first substrate support structure and the second substrate support structure while
the actuator moves the first substrate support structure and the second substrate support structure.
Claim 1.
A flexible substrate testing system, comprising:
a first substrate support structure configured to hold a first portion of a flexible substrate under test;
a second substrate support structure configured to hold a second portion of the flexible substrate;
one or more actuators configured to move the first and second substrate support
structures at respective angles to fold the flexible substrate; and
(see rationale for obviousness rejection below)
a load cells configured to measure loads on the first substrate support structure and
a second load cell configured to measure a second load on the second substrate support structure while
the actuator moves the first substrate support structure and the second substrate support structure.
Claim 1.
A flexible substrate testing system, comprising:
a first substrate support structure configured to hold stationary a first portion of a flexible substrate under test;
a second substrate support structure configured to hold a second portion of the flexible substrate;
an actuator configured to move the second substrate support
structure to fold the flexible substrate and to unfold the flexible substrate; and
(see rationale for obviousness rejection below)
a load cell configured to measure a load on the flexible substrate
Claim 18:
a second load cell configured to measure a portion of the load on the first portion of the flexible substrate.
Claim 2:
an actuator configured to move the second substrate support structure to fold the flexible substrate and to unfold the flexible substrate
a translation linkage configured to hold the first substrate structure and to limit motion for the first substrate support structure to a direction in which the load cell is configured to measure the load.
Claim 38:
A method to measure loads on a flexible substrate, the method comprising:
moving, via an actuator, a first portion of a flexible substrate under test and a second portion of the flexible substrate to fold or unfold the flexible substrate; and
measuring a load on the flexible substrate resulting from the moving, wherein moving the first portion of the flexible substrate under test comprises
moving a first substrate support structure about a first stationary axis and moving the second portion of the flexible substrate under test comprises
moving a second substrate support structure about a second stationary axis.
Claim 18.
A method to measure loads on a flexible substrate, the method comprising:
moving, via an actuator, a first portion of a flexible substrate under test and a second portion of the flexible substrate to fold or unfold the flexible substrate; and
measuring a load on the flexible substrate resulting from the moving by measuring a load normal to a surface of the first portion of the flexible substrate over a duration of the folding or unfolding of the flexible substrate.
Claim 19:
The method as defined in claim 18, wherein moving the first portion of the flexible substrate comprises
rotating a first substrate support structure holding the first portion of the flexible substrate, and moving the second portion of the flexible substrate comprises
rotating a second substrate support structure holding the second portion of the flexible substrate.
Claim 19.
A method to measure loads on a flexible substrate, the method comprising:
holding stationary, via a substrate support structure, a first portion of a flexible substrate under test;
moving, via an actuator, a second portion of the flexible substrate to fold the flexible substrate or to unfold the flexible substrate; and
measuring a load on the flexible substrate resulting from the moving.
Although claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,000,803 and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,885,773 do not explicitly disclose that the first substrate support rotates about a first stationary axis and the second substrate support rotates about a second stationary axis; it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have made for Ardelean to include the first substrate support rotating about a first stationary axis and the second substrate support rotates about a second stationary axis to modify or to omit the additional elements of the instant claim mention in the Table above of application to arrive at claims 21-28 and 38 of the instant application because the person would have realized that the remaining elements would perform the same function as before.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicants were prevented from presenting limitations corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24 and 29-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ardelean et al. [herein after Ardelean] (US 8,544,340).
PNG
media_image2.png
647
722
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 21 and 38, Ardelean discloses a flexible substrate testing system and method having a first substrate support structure (12) configured to hold a first portion of a flexible substrate (11) under test (Fig. 2); a second substrate support structure (12) configured to hold a second portion of the flexible substrate (11); an actuator (18) configured to move the first and second substrate support structures (12) at respective angles to fold the flexible substrate (11) such that the first substrate support (12) rotates about a first stationary axis and the second substrate supports (12) rotates about a second stationary axis (Fig 4a to Fig. 4c); and load cells (15) configured to measure loads on the first substrate support structure (12) and the second substrate support structure (12) while the actuator (18) moves the first substrate support structure (12) and the second substrate support structure (12).
Regarding claim 22, Ardelean further discloses a control circuitry configured to determine the loads on the flexible substrate based on load information from the load cells (Col. 3 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 23, Ardelean further discloses the actuator (18) is configured to move the first and second substrate support structures (12) simultaneously (Col. 2, lines 53-56).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Ardelean further discloses the first substrate support structure (12) having a first plate (see annotated Fig. 5, right side of 12) having a first surface (surface of the plate) and the second substrate support structure (12) comprises a second plate (see adjacent annotated Fig. 5, left side of 12) having a second surface (surface of the plate).
Regarding claim 30, Ardelean further discloses being configured to position a first plane (Fig. 5) of the first surface and a second plane of the second surface vertically during the folding and unfolding (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 31, Ardelean further discloses a first translation linkage (16) configured to hold the first substrate support structure (12) and to limit motion of the first substrate support structure (12) in directions parallel to the first surface of the first substrate support structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Ardelean further discloses a second translation linkage (16) configured to hold the second substrate support structure (12) and to limit motion of the second substrate support structure (12) in directions parallel to the second surface of the second substrate support structure (12).
Regarding claim 33, Ardelean further discloses the first translation linkage (16) comprises a first four-bar linkage (16/13) coupled to the first substrate support structure (12) and the second translation linkage (16) comprises a second four-bar linkage (16/13) coupled to the second substrate support structure (12).
Regarding claim 34, Ardelean further discloses the first and second substrate support structures (12) are configured to fold the substrate (11) to an angle of more than 0 degrees and less than or equal to 360 degrees (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 35, Ardelean further discloses the first substrate support structure (12) is configured to rotate up to 90 degrees (Fig. 2) and the second substrate support structure (12) being configured to rotate up to 90 degrees to fold the substrate at an angle of up to 180 degrees (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 36, Ardelean further discloses a control circuitry configured to determine the loads on the flexible substrate (11) based on a dynamic load measured by the load cells (15) during the folding or unfolding of the flexible substrate (Col. 3 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 37, Ardelean further discloses control circuitry configured to determine the load on the flexible substrate (11) based on a static load measured by the load cells (15) at a completion of the folding or unfolding of the flexible substrate (Col. 3 lines 1-7).
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 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 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 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardelean in view of Han et al. 2019/0154555.
Regarding claims 24-25, Ardelean further discloses the actuators (18) being configured to move the first and second substrate support structures (12) by driving a single cross member (14).
Ardelean fails to explicitly disclose a single input shaft.
Han discloses a single input shaft (201).
Han further discloses input shaft (201) being coupled to a first secondary shaft (2020) configured to move the first substrate support structure (20) and to a second secondary shaft (30) configured to move the second substrate support structure (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicants invention was filed in the field of a flexible substrate testing system, to modify Ardelean, to include an input shaft, as taught by Han, for the benefit of providing a device to move the upper substrate to rotate toward the lower substrate, to convert rotational motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 BRANDI N HOPKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-7042. The examiner can normally be reached M & F 9-5 and T-TH, 6-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/BRANDI N HOPKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
