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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 6-15, 17-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 15, 17, 22 are withdrawn. Claim 21 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
PNG
media_image1.png
160
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 6, 9, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al., WO 2021130866 (hereafter Saito) and further in view of Frogner, US 20230356320 (hereafter Frogner), Rollo et al., US 3118365 (hereafter Rollo), and Kobiella, US 4011807 (hereafter Kobiella).
Regarding claim 1,
“A system, comprising:” (Fig. 1 teaches a system 100)
PNG
media_image2.png
450
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Saito teaches a system
“a piston configured to secure an overlapping segment of a length of a thermoplastic cable material” (Fig. 1 teaches piston 30 securing overlapping materials 200 and 300. Abstract teaches materials 200 and 300 contain thermoplastic resin.)
“the piston comprising: an induction coil configured to apply an electromagnetic field to the weld area;” (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image3.png
458
648
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Saito teaches piston comprising induction coil
“ a power supply coupled to the induction coil; wherein the power supply is configured to apply a field frequency to the induction coil to cause the induction coil to generate the electromagnetic field”( Page 3, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation teaches “The induction coil 10 is a device that generates magnetic force lines in the surroundings by an alternating current of a predetermined frequency supplied from an alternating current power source (not shown), and generates a current in conductive reinforcing fibers arranged at adjacent positions.”)
“around at least one elongate member at a weld area,……disposed around the at least one elongate member;” (The limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “one elongate member.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.)
Saito is silent about “ and heat a metallic or ferromagnetic material located at the weld area to bond the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material”, “and an electromagnetically non-conductive shield to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled from the heat generated by the induction coil applying the electromagnetic field to the metallic or ferromagnetic material when bonding the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.”, “wherein the induction coil has a width smaller than the width of the thermoplastic cable material; a tensioning motor configured to tighten the thermoplastic cable material around the at least one elongate member being bundled by extending a first segment of the thermoplastic cable over a second segment of the thermoplastic cable to create the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable;”
Frogner teaches “ and heat a metallic or ferromagnetic material located at the weld area to bond the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material”(Paragraph [20] in Frogner teaches thermoplastic workpieces are made of metal matrix.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the system in Saito to weld the thermoplastic workpieces made of metal matrix as taught in Frogner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the at least one workpiece is made of a composite material. Preferably, the matrix of the composite is a thermoplastic material or semi crystalline. The matrix material could also be a metal. Hence, there is a possibility for it to be remelted. Thus, the workpieces can be repaired when damaged, increasing recyclability and lifetime of the workpiece” as taught in paragraph [20] in Frogner.)
Primary combination of references is silent about “and an electromagnetically non-conductive shield to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled from the heat generated by the induction coil applying the electromagnetic field to the metallic or ferromagnetic material when bonding the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.”, “wherein the induction coil has a width smaller than the width of the thermoplastic cable material; a tensioning motor configured to tighten the thermoplastic cable material around the at least one elongate member being bundled by extending a first segment of the thermoplastic cable over a second segment of the thermoplastic cable to create the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable;”
Rollo teaches “and an electromagnetically non-conductive shield to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled from the heat generated by the induction coil applying the electromagnetic field to the metallic or ferromagnetic material when bonding the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” (The limitation “to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled the heat generated by the induction coil applying the electromagnetic field to the metallic or ferromagnetic material when bonding the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material”” recites the use of an electromagnetically non-conductive shield.
Rollo teaches tie strip 17 made of aluminum in column 3, lines 40-46. Fig. 2b and column 3, lines 58-65 teaches “In FIGURE 2b, it will be noted that conductor 17 is exposed at its tap surface. When this configuration is used in attaching lace 20 about cable 1®, the lace will be fused to each other but will not be connected to the tie strip so that the lace loop may be moved longitudinally along the cable.” Thus, the elongated members are shielded from welding heat.
PNG
media_image4.png
143
264
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2b in Rollo teaches aluminum strip below cable welding area
Even though Rollo teaches using aluminum to insulate elongate members from dielectric heating, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the aluminum shield as taught in Rollo to the system in Saito to insulate the elongate members from induction heating. Aluminum is, inherently, electromagnetically non-conductive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the lace will be fused to each other but will not be connected to the tie strip so that the lace loop may be moved longitudinally along the cable.” as taught in column 3, lines 58-65 in Rollo.
Additionally, the electromagnetic shielding property of aluminum is inherent and thus obvious as MPEP 2112.02-II teaches “The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds, as well as a method of using them for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the inventors had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use.”
Rollo teaches wherein the induction coil has a width smaller than the width of the thermoplastic cable material; (Column 4, lines 1-5 in Rollo teaches “The end of electrode 22 in contact with lace 20 may be of any suitable configuration but should be approximately the same as or less than the width of tie strip 16 so that the edges of electrode 22 do not extend beyond the transverse dimension of the tie strip.”)
Even though Rollo is silent about induction coil, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the width of the coil to be smaller than the width of cable material as taught in Rollo to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “By maintaining the dimension of electrode 22 less than the width of the rectangular portion 24, the likelihood of stray arcs from the end of the electrode to wires 9 is substantially reduced” as taught in column 4, lines 5-10 in Rollo.
Primary combination of references is silent about a tensioning motor configured to tighten the thermoplastic cable material around the at least one elongate member being bundled by extending a first segment of the thermoplastic cable over a second segment of the thermoplastic cable to create the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable;”
Kobiella teaches “To form a strap loop the strap is fed from a supply roll at a high rate of speed through appropriate guideways about the package to be strapped and then tensioned at a relatively high torque. Once a sufficient length of strap has been dispensed and disposed as a loop about the package so that the trailing strap end overlaps the leading strap end, a region of the leading strap end is gripped and held in the apparatus while the rotational direction of driving motor is reversed to draw tension on the strap and to form a tensioned loop about the package. After the desired tension has been drawn, an overlapping region of both strap ends is gripped so as to retain tension in the loop” in column 1, lines 39-51.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the motor and rolls as taught in Kobiella to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “strap is fed at a high rate of speed about a package so as to form a loop which is then tensioned and subsequently can be sealed” as taught in abstract in Kobiella.
Regarding claim 2,
“The system of claim 1, and the piston is configured to secure the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material” (Fig. 1 in Saito teaches piston 30 securing overlapping materials 200 and 300. Abstract in Saito teaches materials 200 and 300 contain thermoplastic resin.)
Saito is silent about tightened around the at least one elongate member.
Rollo teaches cable 20 is wrapped around elongated members in Fig. 3. Column 4, lines 35-40 teaches “entwine and tighten the lace ends about loose wires 9 and tie strip 16.”
PNG
media_image5.png
377
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Rollo
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to tighten the thermoplastic material around elongated members as taught in Rollo in the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the lace will be fused to each other but will not be connected to the tie strip so that the lace loop may be moved longitudinally along the cable.” as taught in column 3, lines 58-65 in Rollo.)
“ at least one elongate member” (The limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “one elongate member.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.)
Regarding claim 6,
“The system of claim 1, further comprising: a metallic or ferromagnetic insert sensitive to the electromagnetic field positioned at the weld area,” (Saito is silent about this limitation. Paragraph [53] in Frogner teaches adding a woven web of metal at the interface of two workpieces at the weld area.)
“wherein, in response to being heated by the induction coil, the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is configured to bond the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” (Paragraph [48] of Frogner teaches “The inductor 10 induces a current in the workpieces 20, 21 which are susceptive to electromagnetic heating. They are inductively heated at the weld seam area A and are melted or fused together when they reach a predetermined melting or processing temperature corresponding to the material properties of the workpieces 20, 21.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal insert at the weld area as taught in Frogner in the system in Saito to weld the thermoplastic workpieces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The matrix material could also be a metal. Hence, there is a possibility for it to be remelted. Thus, the workpieces can be repaired when damaged, increasing recyclability and lifetime of the workpiece” as taught in paragraph [20] in Frogner.
Regarding claim 9,
“The system of claim 6, wherein the metallic or ferromagnetic insert” ( Saito is silent about this limitation. Paragraph [52] in Frogner teaches workpieces comprise metal matrix.)
“is positioned at the overlapping segments of the thermoplastic cable material at the weld area, between the first segment and the second segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” (Paragraph [48] of Frogner teaches “The inductor 10 induces a current in the workpieces 20, 21 which are susceptive to electromagnetic heating. They are inductively heated at the weld seam area A and are melted or fused together when they reach a predetermined melting or processing temperature corresponding to the material properties of the workpieces 20, 21.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use workpieces made of metal matrix as taught in Frogner in the system of Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the at least one workpiece is made of a composite material. Preferably, the matrix of the composite is a thermoplastic material or semi crystalline. The matrix material could also be a metal. Hence, there is a possibility for it to be remelted. Thus, the workpieces can be repaired when damaged, increasing recyclability and lifetime of the workpiece” as taught in paragraph [20] in Frogner.
Regarding claim 12,
“The system of claim 9, wherein the thermoplastic cable material comprises a layer of the metallic or ferromagnetic material laminated between adjacent layers of thermoplastic cable material,” (Saito is silent about this limitation. Paragraph [52] in Frogner teaches “The workpieces 20, 21 may for instance be made from unidirectional laminates”. Paragraph [52] further teaches workpieces comprise metal.)
“and wherein the electromagnetic field applied from the induction coil to the weld area is configured to heat the layer of the metallic or ferromagnetic material and bond the overlapping segments of the thermoplastic cable material.” (Paragraph [48] of Frogner teaches “The inductor 10 induces a current in the workpieces 20, 21 which are susceptive to electromagnetic heating. They are inductively heated at the weld seam area A and are melted or fused together when they reach a predetermined melting or processing temperature corresponding to the material properties of the workpieces 20, 21.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal laminate at the weld area as taught in Frogner in the system in Saito to weld the thermoplastic workpieces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The matrix material could also be a metal. Hence, there is a possibility for it to be remelted. Thus, the workpieces can be repaired when damaged, increasing recyclability and lifetime of the workpiece” as taught in paragraph [20] in Frogner.)
Regarding claim 21,
The system of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetically non- conductive shield further insulates the at least one elongate member being bundled from the electromagnetic field generated by the induction coil when bonding the overlapping segments of the thermoplastic cable material. (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Frogner, Rollo, Kobiella as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gell Jr., US 4132578 (hereafter Gell).
“The system of claim 6, wherein the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is a clamp that is configured to hold the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material in place and the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is heated by the electromagnetic field from the induction coil to bond the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.”(Primary combination of reference is silent about this limitation.
Gell teaches in column 1, lines 49-56 “a clamp adapted to fit around a plastic pipe coupling in combination with an electrical heating means adapted to heat the clamp to a temperature which will cause the plastic in contact therewith to become semifluid and fuse together. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention the clamp is fabricated from bimetallic bands and heated by an inductive means.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the clamp as taught in Gell to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “an apparatus comprised of a clamp which is adapted to encompass the area to be welded and apply a constricting force to that area while heat is transferred through the clamping means to the plastic” as taught in abstract in Gell.)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Rollo, Kobiella and Frogner as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Gage et al., US 3250209 (hereafter Gage).
“The system of claim 6, wherein the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is …heated by the electromagnetic field from the induction coil to bond the overlapping segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” (Saito is silent about this.
Paragraph [48] of Frogner teaches “The inductor 10 induces a current in the workpieces 20, 21 which are susceptive to electromagnetic heating. They are inductively heated at the weld seam area A and are melted or fused together when they reach a predetermined melting or processing temperature corresponding to the material properties of the workpieces 20, 21.” Paragraph [52] in Frogner teaches workpieces comprise metal matrix.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal insert at the weld area as taught in Frogner in the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the at least one workpiece is made of a composite material. Preferably, the matrix of the composite is a thermoplastic material or semi crystalline. The matrix material could also be a metal. Hence, there is a possibility for it to be remelted. Thus, the workpieces can be repaired when damaged, increasing recyclability and lifetime of the workpiece” as taught in paragraph [20] in Frogner.)
“the metallic or ferromagnetic insert comprises a staple that is configured to be accelerated through the overlapping segments of the thermoplastic cable material” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Gage teaches in claim 13 “means for feeding a single staple from the first channel with the legs of the staple passing through the first pair of aligned notches and into the recessed anvil whereby the legs are folded inwardly against the juxtaposed leading and trailing portions of the strand extending from the strand loop thereby securing the portions of the strand together”. Here legs correspond to prongs.
Gage teaches in claim 15 “ means for driving the positioned staple into engagement with the anvil, whereby the staple is clinched and secured about the leading and trailing portion of the strand extending from the strand loop.” Here driving the staple corresponds to be accelerated.
PNG
media_image6.png
301
472
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Gage teaches staple 29
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the staple as taught in Gage to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a metal staple clamped about the ends of the strand extending from the loop so that the ends are secured together” as taught in column 2, lines 5-10 in Gage.)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Rollo, Kobiella and Frogner as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wehr, US 6470941 (hereafter Wehr).
“The system of claim 9, wherein the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is a mesh, and wherein the mesh is disposed between the first segment of the thermoplastic cable material and the second segment of the thermoplastic cable material and heated by the induction coil to bond the first segment of the thermoplastic cable material to the second segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” ( Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation. Column 7, lines 33-37 in Wehr teaches “It is also possible to insert a wire mesh between the straps and to heat it inductively, and to switch off the induction current as soon as the weld the has reached the desired thickness at which the strap surfaces have intimately fused to each other.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mesh insert as taught in Wehr in the system of Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A process and an apparatus for welding straps of thermoplastic plastics, wherein the supply of heat which is necessary for welding is controlled” as taught in abstract in Wehr. )
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Rollo, Kobiella and Frogner as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Glotin et al., WO 2020016514 (hereafter Glotin).
“The system of claim 9, wherein the metallic or ferromagnetic insert is a foil sheet, the foil sheet is disposed between the first segment of the thermoplastic cable material and the second segment of the thermoplastic cable material and heated by the electromagnetic field from the induction coil to bond the first segment of the thermoplastic cable material to the second segment of the thermoplastic cable material.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Glotin teaches “a method for welding at least two parts (2, 3) comprising a thermoplastic material and having respective surfaces (10, 11) to be welded, which comprises: inserting an insert (4) between the surfaces (10, 11) to be welded of the two parts (2, 3); generating heat by means of said insert (4)” in abstract. Page 25, paragraph 7 teaches the insert is a foil. Page 5, paragraph 3 teaches the welding is an induction welding process.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the foil as taught in Glotin to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for welding at least two parts (2, 3) comprising a thermoplastic material and having respective surfaces (10, 11) to be welded” as taught in abstract in Glotin.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Rollo, Kobiella and Frogner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glotin et al., WO 2020016514 (hereafter Glotin).
“The system of claim 1, wherein the power supply operates at a frequency of 10 kHz to 10 MHz.”(Glotin teaches in page 23, paragraph 6 “In certain embodiments, the inductor 5 generates a magnetic field having a frequency of 10 Hz to 2 MHz”. The claimed range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz overlaps the range of 10 Hz to 2MHz in Glotin.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a frequency of 10 kHz to 10 MHz as taught in Glotin to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for welding at least two parts (2, 3) comprising a thermoplastic material and having respective surfaces (10, 11) to be welded” as taught in abstract in Glotin. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that“ about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)” )
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, Roll, Kobiella and Frogner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ota et al., JP 2018140398 (hereafter Ota).
“The system of claim 1, wherein the induction coil is a hair-pin induction coil, a stacked spiral wire coil, or a spiral-cut sheet coil.”(Ota teaches stacked spiral wire coil in Fig. 10. Thus, Ota is solving the same problem of designing induction coil as the instant claim.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the spiral induction coil in Ota to the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the plural round wires W1 are inductively heated and welded to one another by a magnetic field which is generated in the electric conduction part 104” as taught in abstract of Ota.)
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, and further in view of Kobiella , Frogner, Rollo, Ota, and Glotin.
Regarding claim 18,
“A cable material welding tool, comprising:” (Fig. 1 in Saito.)
….“ the length of the cable material having an overlapping segment at a weld area;” (Fig. 1 in Saito.)
“an induction coil configured to be positioned proximal to the overlapping segment of the cable material at the weld area,” (Fig. 1 in Saito.)
“wherein the induction coil is configured to generate an electromagnetic field in response to an electric current, and” ( Page 3, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation in Saito teaches “The induction coil 10 is a device that generates magnetic force lines in the surroundings by an alternating current of a predetermined frequency supplied from an alternating current power source (not shown), and generates a current in conductive reinforcing fibers arranged at adjacent positions.”)
“and a power supply coupled to the induction coil” ( Page 3, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation in Saito teaches “The induction coil 10 is a device that generates magnetic force lines in the surroundings by an alternating current of a predetermined frequency supplied from an alternating current power source (not shown), and generates a current in conductive reinforcing fibers arranged at adjacent positions.”)
“to generate the electromagnetic field to bond the overlapping segments of the cable material at the weld area.” ( Page 3, paragraph 6 of the attached machine translation in Saito teaches “The induction coil 10 is a device that generates magnetic force lines in the surroundings by an alternating current of a predetermined frequency supplied from an alternating current power source (not shown), and generates a current in conductive reinforcing fibers arranged at adjacent positions.”)
“ and configured to generate a field frequency that operates between 10 kHz and 10 MHz for the induction coil” (Similar scope to claim 13 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“ a length of cable material wrapped around” (Saito is silent about this.
Rollo teaches cable 20 is wrapped around elongated members in Fig. 3. Column 4, lines 35-40 teaches “entwine and tighten the lace ends about loose wires 9 and tie strip 16.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to wrap the thermoplastic material around elongated members as taught in Rollo in the system in Saito. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the lace will be fused to each other but will not be connected to the tie strip so that the lace loop may be moved longitudinally along the cable.” as taught in column 3, lines 58-65 in Rollo.)
“ at least one elongate member being bundled,” (The limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article work on is “one elongate member.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.)
“wherein the induction coil is a pin-hair coil, a spiral wire coil, a stacked spiral wire coil, or a spiral-cut sheet coil;” (Similar scope to claim 14 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
a tensioning motor configured to tighten the cable material around the at least one elongate member being bundled by extending a first segment of the cable material over a second segment of the cable material to create the overlapping segment of the cable material; wherein the induction coil has a width smaller than the width of the cable material; a shield configured to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled from heat generated by a metallic or ferromagnetic material when bonding the overlapping segment of the cable material from the electromagnetic field generated by the induction coil;” (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 19,
“The cable material welding tool of claim 18, wherein the cable material welding tool further comprises: a piston configured to engage the overlapping segments of the cable material,” (Fig. 1 in Saito)
“wherein the induction coil is located in the piston;” (Fig. 2 in Saito)
“wherein the shield is an electromagnetically non-conductive shield to insulate the at least one elongate member being bundled from the electromagnetic field generated when bonding the overlapping segments of the cable material.” (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 20,
“The cable material welding tool of claim 18, wherein the cable material further comprises: a metallic or ferromagnetic layer disposed between adjacent layers of thermoplastic;” (Similar scope to claim 12 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“wherein the induction coil is configured to apply the electromagnetic field to the metallic or ferromagnetic layer to heat the metallic or ferromagnetic layer and bond the overlapping segments of the cable material at the weld area.” (Similar scope to claim 12 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/23/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-14, 18-21 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant amended claims 1 and 18 to include “a tensioning motor configured to tighten the cable material around the at least one elongate member being bundled by extending a first segment of the cable material over a second segment of the cable material to create the overlapping segment of the cable material; wherein the induction coil has a width smaller than the width of the cable material;” and argued this makes the invention distinguishable over prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made based on prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; 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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights