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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitani (KR10-2020-0111708 A) IDS 05/14/2025 with machine translation in view of Ji (KR 10-2013-005167 A) IDS 05/14/2025 with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Mitani discloses a film peeling method for peeling a film from an object (paragraph [0001] system for peeling of a protective film adhered to the brittle material substrate prior to breaking), the method comprising:
assembling a peeling module including a first frame (Figs. 3, 16 abs, paragraphs [0023] [0066] gripping mechanism – 250 includes a guide member – 252) , a second frame connected to the first frame (Fig. 3 paragraph [0066] main body – 251 with guide member – 252 formed by extending in the x-axis direction and guiding the main body – 251) and including a rotation body and a gripper which grips the film attached to the object and to be removed (Figs 16, 19, 20 paragraphs [0067] [0068] [0070] 251d that rotates the entire body portion – 251; gripping mechanism – 250 configuration is roughly between the claw part – 251b and base – 251e from a standby position POS3 to a gripping position POS4 to POS5), and is rotatable about a rotation axis of the rotation body connecting the first frame and the gripper (Fig. 18 paragraph [0108] main body – 251 of the gripping mechanism – 250 follows the guide member – 252 from the standby position – POS3 to the gripping execution position POS4), and Mitani also discloses including connecting the first frame an articulated arm included in an articulated robot (Fig. 14 paragraph [0080] conveyance arm -321 guided by the guide member extending in the vertical direction see Fig. 14). See Figs. 3 and 20 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
452
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
743
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, while Mitani discloses a peeling boundary, it does not disclose a third frame defining a boundary at which the film to be removed is peeled from the object -Fig. 24:
PNG
media_image3.png
480
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ji discloses a peeling system for automatically peeling a protective film from an object (paragraph [0001]) and comprises a peeling unit with a gripper and a rotation piece with a film grip portion and a roller portion which correlates to a third frame defining a boundary at which the film to be removed is peeled from the object (Figs 5A-5D paragraph [0101] as the roller – 430 is slidingly moved while being in close contact with the protective film – 170, the roller – 430 can be held by pressing the protective film – 170). See Fig.5D below:
PNG
media_image4.png
652
1010
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have combined the disclosure of Mitani with its method of peeling of a film having a first and second frame, the latter with a rotation body and a gripper which is rotatable about a rotation axis as indicated in Figure 24 with the teaching of the method of Ji where there is a third frame defining the boundary at which the film is removed as shown in Fig. 5D above. One with this ordinary skill would add this third frame feature because it prevents the lifting of any underlying substrate or layers by the film being lifted in the peeling process (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Mitani further discloses that the method further comprises gripping the film attached to the object and to be removed by the gripper of the second frame (Figs. 24, 25 paragraph [0116] main body – 251 of the gripping mechanism – 250 is rotated 90 around the rotation movement axis – 251d and accompanied by this rotational movement, the protective film – F is lifted up as a whole as shown in Fig. 24).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Ji further discloses that when viewed from a top of the peeling module, the third frame is spaced apart from the second frame in a first direction perpendicular to the rotation axis (Fig. 4b paragraph [0077] roller unit – 430 is moved up and down in the z-axis direction defined by the drawing), and
when viewed from a front of the peeling module, the third frame is movable in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and facing the film and in a third direction opposite to the second direction (See Fig. 4a paragraph [0085] roller unit – 430 corresponds to the width of the protective film – 170).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and Ji further discloses that the third frame includes a roller which presses the film, and the roller is in rolling contact with the film (Fig. 5a paragraph [0101] roller – 430 pressing the protective film – 170).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and Mitani further discloses winding the film around the gripper by rotating the second frame about the rotation axis (Figs. 24, 25 paragraph [0116] main body – 251 of the gripping mechanism – 250 is rotated 90° around the rotation movement axis – 251d and accompanied by this rotational movement, the protective film – F is lifted up as a whole as shown in Fig. 24); and moving the peeling module to a preset path by the articulated robot (paragraph [0081] process flow – a series of process performed under control by the control unit),
while Ji further discloses when viewed from the front of the peeling module, moving the third frame in the second direction to make rolling contact with the film (Fig. 5a paragraph [0101] roller – 430 pressing the protective film – 170 in order to maintain a horizontal position).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 5 and Mitani further discloses a fourth frame connected to the first frame and disposed between the second frame and the third frame of Ji,
wherein when viewed from the top of the peeling module, the fourth frame is movable in a fourth direction parallel to the rotation axis and away from the first frame and in a fifth direction opposite to the fourth direction (Figs 16, 17 paragraph [0103] expansion and contraction of the movable part – 251c by the operation of an air switch connection – 253a and 253b).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 6 and Mitani further discloses when viewed from the top of the peeling module, separating the film wound around the gripper of the second frame from the gripper by moving the fourth frame in the fourth direction.(Fig. 17 paragraph [0102] when main body- 251 is in the vertical posture – POS5 at the gripping position POS4, the movable portion – 251c is stretched (moved up and down) so that the gripping (interposed ) of the end portion of the protective film – F between the silo and release thereof is possible - claw portion – 251b contact with the outer peripheral end of the protective film – F realizing the gripping of the end portion).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mitani (KR10-2020-0111708 A) IDS 05/14/2025 with machine translation and Ji (KR 10-2013-005167 A) IDS 05/14/2025 with machine translation as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN111907846A) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mitani and Ji disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and while Ji further discloses that the third frame includes a roller, it does not disclose that there is a curved surface which presses the film, and the curved surface is in sliding contact with the film.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have tried a curved surface that is a profile which presses the film and be in sliding contact because if an ordinary artisan can choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it would be “obvious to try” because there was a recognized problem warranting the use of a roller which is a type of curved surface with a finite number of identified, predictable potential solution and one would have pursued the known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2143 IE.
This is clearly shown where Zhang (CN111907846A) discloses a film stripping device and peeling method which teaches a film peeling device having a curved surface and is in sliding contact with the film (Fig. 5 p. 5 2nd paragraph inventor found that the sliding friction coefficient between the pointer – 2 and the protective film – 11 can be appropriately increased. This is to prevent the protective film – 11 from being scratched.). See Zhang, Fig. 5 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
451
479
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mitani and Ji with the evidence of Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 8 and Mitani further discloses winding the film around the gripper by rotating the second frame about the rotation axis (Figs. 24, 25 paragraph [0116] main body – 251 of the gripping mechanism – 250 is rotated 90° around the rotation movement axis – 251d and accompanied by this rotational movement, the protective film – F is lifted up as a whole as shown in Fig. 24) and moving the peeling module to a preset path by the articulated robot (paragraph [0081] process flow – a series of process performed under control by the control unit),
while Ji further discloses when viewed from the front of the peeling module, moving the third frame in the second direction to make rolling contact with the film (Fig. 5a paragraph [0101] roller – 430 pressing the protective film – 170 in order to maintain a horizontal position).
However, while Ji further discloses that the third frame includes a roller, it does not disclose that there is a curved surface which presses the film, and the curved surface is in sliding contact with the film.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have tried a curved surface that is a profile which presses the film and be in sliding contact because if an ordinary artisan can choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, it would be “obvious to try” because there was a recognized problem warranting the use of a roller which is a type of curved surface with a finite number of identified, predictable potential solution and one would have pursued the known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2143 IE.
This is clearly shown where Zhang (CN111907846A) discloses a film stripping device and peeling method which teaches a film peeling device having a curved surface and is in sliding contact with the film (Fig. 5 p. 5 2nd paragraph inventor found that the sliding friction coefficient between the pointer – 2 and the protective film – 11 can be appropriately increased. This is to prevent the protective film – 11 from being scratched.). See Zhang, Fig. 5 above.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mitani, Ji with the evidence of Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 9 and Mitani further discloses a fourth frame connected to the first frame and disposed between the second frame and the third frame of Ji,
wherein when viewed from the top of the peeling module, the fourth frame is movable in a fourth direction parallel to the rotation axis and away from the first frame and in a fifth direction opposite to the fourth direction (Figs 16, 17 paragraph [0103] expansion and contraction of the movable part – 251c by the operation of an air switch connection – 253a and 253b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights