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 Status
Claims 17-21 cancelled.
Claims 22-25 newly added.
Claims 1-16 and 22-25 are pending and examined as follows:
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatasubramanian (US9937583).
With regards to claim 1, Venkatasubramanian discloses an apparatus, comprising a set of pre-welding electrodes (first electrode 12 and second electrode 14, Fig. 1) including a shape-forming electrode having a contact face (first electrode 12 having a first engagement surface 18, Fig. 1), the contact face has a shape-forming structure shaping a cross-section of a first segment of a first wire with a pre-welding shape upon compression of the contact face against the first segment (first engagement surface 18 has a generally semicircular recess 20 configured to make contact with the exterior surface of the member 38, Fig. 3), the pre-welding shape has a reentrance accommodating a second segment of a second wire to be welded to the first wire (shape includes a number of strands 42, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 5, Venkatasubramanian discloses wherein the set of pre-welding electrodes includes a base electrode positioned on a side of the first segment opposite the contact face of the shape-forming electrode (second electrode 14 is a base positioned under the first engagement surface 18 of first electrode 12, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 6, Venkatasubramanian discloses wherein the base electrode has a compression face compressing the first segment against the shape-forming structure at the contact face (second electrode 14 has an engagement face 22 that compresses against member 38, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 7, Venkatasubramanian discloses wherein the compression face is a flat surface extending transverse to a direction of the compression face (second electrode 14 has a second engagement surface 22 compliments the first engagement surface 18, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimaki et al (JPH0495372A).
With regards to claim 22, Fujimaki et al discloses a system (wire joining device, Title), comprising a first wire having a first segment; a second wire having a second segment (electric wires 13 and 15, Fig. 9); and an apparatus having a set of pre-welding electrodes including a shape-forming electrode having a contact face (pressurizing tool having a power source 23 connected to electrode 28 having upper electrode 28a with curved surfaces 19a, convex portion 19b and lower electrode 28b with a lower end side 19c, Fig. 8), the contact face has a shape-forming structure shaping a cross-section of the first segment of the first wire with a pre-welding shape upon compression of the contact face against the first segment (curved surfaces 19a has a curve to shape the segments of electric wires 13,15, Fig. 8), the pre-welding shape has a reentrance accommodating the second segment of the second wire to be welded to the first wire (convex portion 19b accommodates space between electric wires 13,15, Fig. 8).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Tonoike et al (US 10,431,905).
With regards to claim 2, Venkatasubramanian does not disclose wherein the shape-forming structure at the contact face has a protrusion forming the reentrance.
Tonoike et al teaches a connection structure wherein the shape-forming structure at the contact face has a protrusion forming the reentrance (crimping device 60D wherein at the protruding portion 44Da has two mountain shaped protrusion forming portion 612, Fig. 8A-8C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Venkatasubramanian and Tonoike et al before him or her, to modify the electrode of Venkatasubramanian to include the protrusion of Tonoike et al because the combination allows crimping and processing a wire with high accuracy.
With regards to claim 3, Tonoike et al teaches wherein the shape-forming structure at the contact face has a groove with the protrusion at an intermediate position of the groove (crimping device 60D wherein at the protruding portion 44Da has two mountain shaped protrusion forming portion 612 having outer peripheral contact portions 615 of each receiving groove 611, Fig. 8A-8C).
With regards to claim 4, Tonoike et al teaches wherein the protrusion and the groove form a W-shaped cavity in the first segment with a pair of parallel ridges on each side of the reentrance (crimping portion 30 is substantially M shaped and when inverted would be a W, Fig. 8B).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kraus (US 4,339,651).
With regards to claim 8, Venkatasubramanian does not disclose a set of welding electrodes applying a welding potential difference between a first position and a second position along a longitudinal direction of the first segment to weld the first segment to the second segment.
Kraus teaches a set of welding electrodes applying a welding potential difference between a first position and a second position along a longitudinal direction of the first segment to weld the first segment to the second segment (two electrodes 1 and 2 applying current to lead 3 between the position of electrode 1 and electrode 2 along a longitudinal direction, Fig. 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Venkatasubramanian and Kraus before him or her, to modify the upper electrode of Venkatasubramanian to include the electrodes of Kraus because the combination allows for secure mechanical support for processing a wire.
With regards to claim 9, Kraus teaches wherein the set of welding electrodes includes a first sub-set of welding electrodes arranged around the first segment at the first position, the first sub-set of welding electrodes applying a first welding potential and an inward pressure on the first segment to shape the cross-section of the first segment into a welding shape (each of two electrodes 1 and 2 have a first set of end faces 6 providing inward pressure to wire 3, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 10, Venkatasubramanian discloses wherein the first sub-set of welding electrodes has a base welding electrode on which the first segment is loaded and at least one compression welding electrode arranged around the cross-section of the first segment at the first position and movable along a radial direction to apply the inward pressure on the first segment against the base welding electrode (second electrode 14 is a base on which member 38 is loaded and first electrode 12 is movable to apply pressure against member 38, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 12, Venkatasubramanian discloses wherein the base welding electrode has a contact face applying inward pressure that is a substantially flat surface (second electrode 14 is a base that applies pressure to member 38 through drive element 50, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 13, Kraus teaches wherein the set of welding electrodes includes a second sub-set of welding electrodes arranged around the first segment at the second position, the second sub- set of welding electrodes applying a second welding potential and an inward pressure on the first segment to shape the cross-section at the second position into the welding shape (each of two electrodes 1 and 2 have a first pair of end faces 6 and second pair of end faces 6 providing inward pressure to wire 3, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 14, Kraus teaches wherein the second sub-set of welding electrodes has a same number and shape of welding electrodes as the first sub-set of welding electrodes (each of two electrodes 1 and 2 have a first pair of end faces 6 and second pair of end faces 6 providing inward pressure to wire 3, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 15, Kraus teaches wherein the set of welding electrodes has a set of insulating elements arranged around the first segment at an intermediate position between the first sub-set of welding electrodes and the second sub-set of welding electrodes (electrodes 1 and 2 have recesses 7 that act as insulation between end faces 6, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 16, Kraus teaches wherein the set of insulating elements has a same number and shape as the first sub-set of welding electrodes (there are the same number of recesses 7 as end faces 6, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 23,24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimaki et al as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Mori (US 2015/0323392A1).
With regards to claim 23, Fujimaki et al discloses a first wire is a multi-filament stranded wire (electric wire 115 is a multi-filament stranded wire, Fig. 9).
Fujimaki et al does not disclose the second wire is an electrical wire of a single solid core.
Mori teaches a first wire is a multi-filament stranded wire and the second wire is an electrical wire of a single solid core (first wire 37 is made of multi-filament stranded wire and single core wire 19, Fig. 5a,b).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Fujimaki et al and Mori before him or her, to modify the wires to be produced of Fujimaki et al to include the wires of Mori because the combination allows for producing multiple types of elements that need a set of conductive wires.
With regards to claim 24, Mori teaches wherein the cross-section of the second segment of the second wire is smaller than the cross-section of the first segment of the first wire (cross section of wire 19 is smaller than the cross section of wire 37, Fig. 5a).
With regards to claim 25, Fujimaki et al discloses wherein the shape-forming structure at the contact face has a protrusion forming the reentrance (convex portion 19b is a protrusion between adjacent curved surface 19a, Fig. 8).
Fujimaki et al and Mori does not teach wherein the protrusion has a height that is twice a diameter of the second wire and/or the protrusion has a width that is greater than or equal to a diameter of the second wire. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the electrodes of Fujimaki et al and Mori, since the applicant has not disclosed that wherein the protrusion has a height that is twice a diameter of the second wire and/or the protrusion has a width that is greater than or equal to a diameter of the second wire solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the electrodes of Fujimaki et al and Mori.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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 prior art does not disclose or teach wherein the at least one compression welding electrode is a pair of compression welding electrodes, the pair of compression welding electrodes and the base welding electrode are arranged with an angular separation of 120 degrees around the cross-section of the first segment to change the pre-welding shape of the first segment into a triangular welding shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2/17/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection of claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 8 in view of 112b has been withdrawn.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose “the contact face a shape-forming structure shaping a cross-section of a first segment of a first wire with a pre-welding shape upon compression of the contact face against the first segment” in claim 1. Venkatasubramanian discloses an apparatus, comprising a set of pre-welding electrodes (first electrode 12 and second electrode 14, Fig. 1) including a shape-forming electrode having a contact face (first electrode 12 having a first engagement surface 18, Fig. 1), the contact face has a shape-forming structure shaping a cross-section of a first segment of a first wire with a pre-welding shape upon compression of the contact face against the first segment (first engagement surface 18 has a generally semicircular recess 20 configured to make contact with the exterior surface of the member 38, Fig. 3). Venkatasubramanian clearly shows a degree of compression of each strand 42 by first electrode 12 and second electrode 14 (Fig. 3). The first engagement surface 18 and second engagement surface 22 provides contact and is considered a degree of compression to shape the strands in the following steps of processing (Fig. 3-4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is 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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at 5712725567. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights