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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US PG Pub 2008/0216676) in view of Barthelmess et al. (US PG Pub 2020/0101674).
For claim 1: Robinson teaches method for a heat press 100, the heat press configured to be coupled in control communication with a controller, the controller 160 comprising a processor and a tangible, non- transitory, computer-readable storage medium (see paragraph 24, microprocessor), wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored on the storage medium to perform various operations of the method. Robison does not teach the method steps of actuating, by the controller, a drive motor to drive relative movement between a heat plate and a platen to exert a compressive force on a workpiece disposed between the heat plate and the platen. However, Barthelmess et al. teaches actuating, by the controller, a drive motor to drive relative movement between a heat plate and a platen to exert a compressive force on a workpiece disposed between the heat plate and the platen (see paragraph 61, motor control to precisely and electronically control the system with at least one motor to prevent worker fatigue). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a motor electronically controlled as taught by Barthelmess et al. for the purpose of precision control and prevention of worker fatigue.
For claim 12: Robinson teaches a heat press 100 comprising: a heat plate 122; a platen 124; and a controller 160 comprising a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, wherein the processor is configured to execute instructions stored on the storage medium (see paragraph 24). Robinson does not teach a drive motor and processor to actuate the drive motor to drive relative movement between a heat plate and a platen. However, Barthelmess et al. teaches actuating, by the controller, a drive motor to drive relative movement between a heat plate and a platen to exert a compressive force on a workpiece disposed between the heat plate and the platen (see paragraph 61, motor control to precisely and electronically control the system with at least one motor to prevent worker fatigue). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide a motor electronically controlled as taught by Barthelmess et al. for the purpose of precision control and prevention of worker fatigue.
For claim 2 and 13: The combination of Robinson and Barthelmess et al. teaches the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 12 and Robinson teaches comprising receiving, by the controller, a measured force signal from a force transducer, wherein the measured force signal is indicative of a magnitude of the compressive force (see paragraph 37).
For claims 3 and 14: The combination of Robinson and Barthelmess et al. teaches the method of claim 2 and apparatus of claim 13, and in combination teaches modulating, by the controller, the drive motor based on the measured force signal to exert a desired compressive force on the workpiece (see paragraph 37 of Robinson, manually adjusting to the optimal pressure, see paragraph 61 of Barthelmess et al., electronically performing the manual process).
For claim 4: The combination of Robinson and Barthelmess et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the desired compressive force is a predetermined and constant force (see paragraph 37 of Robinson, the optimal value, at least for each method iteration, is a predetermined constant value).
For claim 11: The combination of Robinson and Barthelmess et al. teaches the method of claim 1, and Robinson teaches positioning a workpiece on the platen; and lowering the heat plate toward the platen (see paragraph 3).
For claim 15: The combination of Robinson and Barthelmess et al. teaches the heat press of claim 12, and Robinson et al. teaches comprising a position sensor 300 configured to send position data, indicative of a position of the heat plate relative to the platen, to the controller (see Fig. 6, paragraph 39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 16-18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record or any obvious combination thereof teaches receiving handle position data from a handle position sensor coupled to a handle of the heat press, wherein the handle position data is indicative of a position of the handle relative to an upper housing of the heat press; and determining, by the controller and based on the handle position data, whether a user exerted an activating actuation or a deactivating actuation on the handle.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights