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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to “the vertical movement” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted as simply “vertical movement.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim appears to recite the same limitations which are already disclosed in parent claim 21. It is therefore not clear if an additional pulley system is being added to the apparatus of claim 21, or if it refers to the same pulley system previously disclosed.
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) 1-7, 9-16 and 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park KR 201000004428 and Freedman US 2,473,517.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses as seen in fig. 2, 3 5b and 5c, an apparatus for testing adhesive strength between a cover layer (test tape 16) and a surface (top of test plate 26), comprising a base 26, a head 6 operatively coupled with the base via a slide (guide rail 28), a coupler assembly 22 configured to attach to the cover layer, an actuator 12 configured to drive the coupler assembly vertically upward to separate the cover layer from the surface, and a sensor 18 operatively coupled to the coupler assembly and configure to measure a condition of the coupler assembly as the head moves. Park operates in a similar manner to that of the claimed invention wherein the head and the base move relative to one another, however in Park, the base is connected to the slide rather than the head.
Freedman teaches an adhesion testing machine in which the adhesive strength between a cover layer 26 and a surface 27 is tested. A head (carriage at approximately 5) is coupled with the base to slide such that the head is configured to slide with respect the base (along lead screw 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freedman with those of Park in order to simultaneously move the head with respect to the base to ensure that the adhesive element under test is maintained in its position during testing and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 2, the actuator of both Park (10) and Freedman (20) comprise a motor as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches a drive screw 12 extending along a height of the head and operably coupled with the motor 10 wherein activation of the motor causes vertical movement of the coupler assembly via the drive screw.
Regarding claim 4, the condition of the coupler assembly of Park is a pulling force between the coupler assembly and the cover layer as measured by load cell 18.
Regarding claim 5, as seen in fig. 5c of Park, the base and head of the apparatus move in conjunction so that when the head moves upward, the base slides horizontally. Park does not teach the use of a pully system for movement to occur however. Freedman discloses the movement of the head in both a vertical and horizontal manner via the use of pulleys 23, 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freeman with those of Park to provide a simple and reliable means for accurately moving the elements during testing.
Regarding claim 6, in combination, the pulley system includes a pulley mounted to the head as shown by Freeman.
Regarding claim 7, in combination, the pully system of Freeman would include a cable engaging the pulley between the base and the coupler assembly as shown in fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, the slide of Park includes a rail and glide in the claimed arrangement as seen in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 10, the actuator of Park is disposed within the base of the head, as seen in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, the apparatus of Park operates as claimed, however does not explicitly disclose being operated without being secured to the plate as claimed. Freedman illustrates the test arrangement as being next to, but not directly connected to the surface 27 and therefore operates without being secured to the surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freedman with those of Park to allow for testing of materials which are secured to an object other than the test rig, to increase the number of applications of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses as seen in fig. 2, 3 5b and 5c, an apparatus for testing adhesive strength between a cover layer (test tape 16) and a surface (top of test plate 26), comprising a base 26, a head 6 operatively coupled with the base via a slide (guide rail 28), a coupler assembly 22 configured to attach to the cover layer, an actuator 12 disposed in the head and configured to drive the coupler assembly upward to separate the cover layer from the surface, , and a sensor 18 operatively coupled to the coupler assembly and configure to measure a condition of the coupler assembly as the head moves. Park operates in a similar manner to that of the claimed invention wherein the head and the base move relative to one another, however in Park, the base is connected to the slide rather than the head and a pully system is not disclosed.
Freedman teaches an adhesion testing machine in which the adhesive strength between a cover layer 26 and a surface 27 is tested. A head (carriage at approximately 5) is coupled with the base to slide such that the head is configured to slide with respect the base (along lead screw 10) in both a vertical and horizontal manner via the use of pulleys 23, 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freedman with those of Park in order to move the head using a simple and reliable means for accurately moving the elements with respect to the base to ensure that the adhesive element under test is maintained in its position during testing and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 13, the actuator of both Park (10) and Freedman (20) comprise a motor as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches a drive screw 12 extending along a height of the head and operably coupled with the motor 10 wherein activation of the motor causes vertical movement of the coupler assembly via the drive screw.
Regarding claim 15, the condition of the coupler assembly of Park is a pulling force between the coupler assembly and the cover layer as measured by load cell 18.
Regarding claim 16, the pulley of Freedman, when combined with Park, includes a pulley mounted on the head and a cable engaging the pulley between the base and the coupler assembly.
Regarding claim 18, the slide of Park includes a rail and glide in the claimed arrangement as seen in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 19, the actuator of Park is disposed within the base of the head, as seen in fig. 2.
Regarding claim 20, the apparatus of Park operates as claimed, however does not explicitly disclose being operated without being secured to the plate as claimed. Freedman illustrates the test arrangement as being next to, but not directly connected to the surface 27 and therefore operates without being secured to the surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freedman with those of Park to allow for testing of materials which are secured to an object other than the test rig, to increase the number of applications of the device.
Regarding claim 21, Park discloses as seen in fig. 2, 3 5b and 5c, an apparatus for testing adhesive strength between a cover layer (test tape 16) and a surface (top of test plate 26), comprising a base 26, a head 6 operatively coupled with the base via a slide (guide rail 28), a coupler assembly 22 including a clamp configured to attach to the cover layer, an actuator 12 configured to drive the coupler assembly upward to separate the cover layer from the surface, and a sensor 18 operatively coupled to the coupler assembly and configure to measure a condition of the coupler assembly as the head moves. Park operates in a similar manner to that of the claimed invention wherein the head and the base move relative to one another, however in Park, the base is connected to the slide rather than the head and a pully system is not disclosed.
Freedman teaches an adhesion testing machine in which the adhesive strength between a cover layer 26 and a surface 27 is tested. A head (carriage at approximately 5) is coupled with the base to slide such that the head is configured to slide with respect the base (along lead screw 10) in both a vertical and horizontal manner via the use of pulleys 23, 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freedman with those of Park in order to move the head using a simple and reliable means for accurately moving the elements with respect to the base to ensure that the adhesive element under test is maintained in its position during testing, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 22, as seen in fig. 5c of Park, the base and head of the apparatus move in conjunction so that when the head moves upward, the base slides horizontally. Park does not teach the use of a pully system for movement to occur however. Freedman discloses the movement of the head in both a vertical and horizontal manner via the use of pulleys 23, 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Freeman with those of Park to provide a simple and reliable means for accurately moving the elements during testing.
Regarding claim 23, in combination, the pulley system includes a pulley mounted to the head as shown by Freeman.
Regarding claim 24, the head of Park extends substantially orthogonal to the base as claimed.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Freedman as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Mancini US 3,019,644.
Regarding claim 8, Park and Freedman disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the cable as having a fixed length between a first end secure to the base and a second end secured to the coupler assembly. Mancini teaches an adhesion testing machine in which a pulley system connects on one end 44 to a coupler assembly and another end 40 attached to a base (fig. 1). In Mancini, the cables are separate and connected via a shaft 20, however they move in conjunction with one another and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the shaft 20 with more cable if a substantial drive shaft was not needed for the testing as such a change would not change the manner of operation of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Park and Freedman disclose the claimed invention but do not explicitly teach the cable as having a fixed length between a first end secure to the base and a second end secured to the coupler assembly. Mancini teaches an adhesion testing machine in which a pulley system connects on one end 44 to a coupler assembly and another end 40 attached to a base (fig. 1). In Mancini, the cables are separate and connected via a shaft 20, however they move in conjunction with one another and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have replaced the shaft 20 with more cable if a substantial drive shaft was not needed for the testing as such a change would not change the manner of operation of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The remaining references to Haber, Arrington, Deng and Li are provided for teachings of similar adhesive testing devices which can apply a force to pull an adhered element from a surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights