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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DONG et al. (US 2015/0314584).
Regarding claim 1, DONG teaches a method of separating a ply from a backing comprising contacting a first support 106 to the laminate first surface separate from a corner, contacting a second support 105 to the laminate second side separate from the corner, actuating a corner displacer 140a to bend the corner in opposing directions to bend the layers to separate the laminate at the corner, and displacing the ply and backing to separate a remainder of the laminae (figs. 5A-5B; paras. 29, 33, 34, and 38).
Regarding claim 2, DONG teaches portions of the ply and backing bend on an axis substantially parallel to the first and second surfaces (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, DONG teaches plural cycles (para. 35).
Regarding claim 11, DONG teaches the second support comprises a suction end effector where the effector displaces the laminate and the first support and second support are contacted with the first and second sides held by the end effector (para. 26; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, DONG teaches a gripper coupled to the first support that displaces separated ply and backing (para. 34).
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.
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) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG.
Regarding claim 3, DONG teaches the ply comprises oriented fibers in a resin (para. 35), but does not explicitly teach the fibers extend in a direction perpendicular to the bending direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to bend the ply perpendicular to the fibers in order to the fiber direction because there was a reasonable expectation of producing the same delamination whether perpendicular, parallel, or otherwise oriented (MPEP 2141).
Regarding claim 6, DONG teaches cycles last less than 5 seconds (para. 35), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a cycle time less than 2 seconds because the ranges overlap (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DONG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HOCKEMEYER et al. (US 10,207,587).
Regarding claim 4, DONG does not teach the backing is attached to the ply via adhesive. HOCKEMEYER teaches another method of oscillating force separation of a ply from a backing, wherein the ply and backing are bonded via an adhesive such that the adhesive bonds break upon separation (col. 3, lines 5-17; col. 4, lines 29-45), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize adhesive between the ply and backing of DONG in order to secure the backing to the ply material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the corner displacer is a first corner displacer and the system further comprises a second corner displacer, and actuating the corner displacer to displace the corner comprises pivoting the first corner displacer and the second corner displacer relative to at least one of the first support and second support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights