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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 8, 16, 18, 19, 21 remain pending in the application. 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 03/06/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 11, 13-15 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19, 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claim 1 recites a concentrator with receptacle surface, and face surface wherein the face surface is configured to match an exterior surface contour of the first thermoplastic body. Paragraph [48] of the original disclosure describes “The face surface 64, for example, may be flat where the workpiece 22 has the flat exterior surface. The face surface 64 may alternatively have a non-flat (e.g., curved, compound, concave, convex, etc.) where the workpiece exterior surface is a non-flat.” Baltes is the closest prior art. Fig. 2E in Baltes teaches a concentrator with face surface, however, the face surface is not configured to match the tapered workpiece exterior surface.
Claims 2-5, 8, 11, 13-15 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 19 recites a concentrator with receptacle wherein the opposing sides of the receptacle flaring laterally out as the receptacle extends vertically to an opening in the face surface. Baltes is the closest prior art. Fig. 2E in Baltes teaches a concentrator with receptacle, however, Baltes is silent about a flared receptacle.
Claim 21 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 19.
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.”
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites
PNG
media_image1.png
104
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The underlined sections have wrong prepositions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 18, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1, and recites “a receptacle surface”. It is not clear if claim 8 is referring to the same receptacle surface as claim 1 or a different one.
Claim 16 recites at least a portion of the receptacle surface extending along a trajectory to between a first edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface and a second edge proximate the end of the receptacle, the trajectory comprising a vertical component and a lateral component claim 18 depends on claim 16 and recites the portion of the receptacle surface is configured with a straight sectional geometry. It is not clear how the receptacle surface in claim 18 can be straight and have a trajectory with multiple components at the same time.
Claim 19 recites “the coil receptacle” however coil receptacle has not been cited previously.
Claim 21 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 19.
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) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al., “Induction welding of thermoplastic composites- an overview”, Composites: Part A 37 (2006), pages 1638-1651 (hereafter Ahmed), and further in view of Baltes wt al., US 20170087762 (hereafter Baltes), Verhagen et al., US 20140231415 (hereafter Verhagen), and Batista et al., US 20220240586 (hereafter Batista).
Regarding claim 16,
“An induction welder for induction welding thermoplastic material, comprising:” (Fig. 9 in Ahmed teaches an induction welder. Abstract teaches induction welding of thermoplastic materials.)
“a coil configured to generate an electromagnetic field; and” (Fig. 9)
PNG
media_image2.png
216
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 in Ahmed
“a concentrator configured to concentrate the electromagnetic field” (Fig. 9)
“onto a region of the thermoplastic material,” (This limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 teaches “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).”)
“the concentrator comprising a face surface, a receptacle surface, and a receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
…“ the receptacle projecting vertically into the concentrator from an opening in the face surface to an end of the receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
“ the receptacle extending laterally within the concentrator between opposing sides of the receptacle,” (Annotated Fig. 9)
Ahmed is silent about the face surface extending longitudinally along the concentrator,.. at least a portion of the receptacle surface extending along a trajectory to between a first edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface and a second edge proximate the end of the receptacle, the trajectory comprising a vertical component and a lateral component,… and the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline; the coil vertically recessed into and extending longitudinally along the centerline through the coil receptacle, wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.”
Baltes teaches the face surface extending longitudinally along the concentrator, (Paragraph [66] teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are enclosed by a concentrator 28A, 28B.” It is understood from Fig. 2A and 2E that concentrators, hence face surfaces, extend longitudinally along coils 24A, 24B in X direction.)
PNG
media_image3.png
507
826
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zoomed in portion of Fig 2E in Baltes
PNG
media_image4.png
434
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A in Baltes
“and the receptacle extending longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline;” (Paragraph [66] teaches “the two effective sections 24A, 24B of the inductor 20 are enclosed by a concentrator 28A, 28B.” It is understood from Fig. 2A and 2E that concentrators extend longitudinally along coils 24A, 24B in X direction. Thus, the receptacle also extends longitudinally within the concentrator along a centerline.)
“the coil…..extending longitudinally along the centerline through the l receptacle.” (Fig. 2A and fig. 2E teach that coils are seated and extending longitudinally along the centerline within receptacle.)
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 receptacle and coil to extend longitudinally along the centerline as taught in Baltes in the induction welder in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The advantage of the use of concentrators is that the magnetic field can be concentrated in a targeted way on the desired area” as taught in paragraph [23] in Baltes.
Primary combination of references is silent about at least a portion of the receptacle surface extending along a trajectory to between a first edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface and a second edge proximate the end of the receptacle, the trajectory comprising a vertical component and a lateral component,…..the coil vertically recessed into…receptacle, wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.
Batista teaches “the coil vertically recessed into and ….the receptacle”( Batista teaches vertically recessed coil into the receptacle of concentrator in Fig. 1. Thus Batista is solving the same problem of designing concentrator and coil arrangement as the instant claim.
PNG
media_image5.png
290
635
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Batista
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 coil to be vertically recessed into the receptacle as taught in Batista in the welder in Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The shape of the first flux concentrator 20, and in particular the first and second end portions 26, 28, distort the varying magnetic field so that the varying magnetic field is concentrated in a first portion of the susceptor 16 positioned within the first inductor coil 12” as taught in paragraph [119] in Batista.)
Primary combination of references is silent about at least a portion of the receptacle surface extending along a trajectory to between a first edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface and a second edge proximate the end of the receptacle, the trajectory comprising a vertical component and a lateral component,… wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator.
Verhagen teaches at least a portion of the receptacle surface extending along a trajectory to between a first edge between the receptacle surface and the face surface and a second edge proximate the end of the receptacle, the trajectory comprising a vertical component and a lateral component (Fig. 6 teaches curved receptacle surface)
PNG
media_image6.png
246
369
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 in Verhagen
wherein a thermally conductive bonding material bonds and thermally couples the coil with the concentrator (Verhagen teaches thermally conductive potting compound 304 secures the coil with respect to the flux concentrator in paragraph [43].)
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 curved receptacle surface, and thermally conductive potting compound between coil and concentrator as taught in Verhagen in the welder of Ahmed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The conductive coil is disposed in the potting compound, and the flux concentrator is disposed about the conductive coil and the potting compound such that the flux is concentrated toward the first face” as taught in paragraph [11] in Verhagen.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed, Baltes, Verhagen, and Batista as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Loveless.
“The induction welder of claim 16, wherein the portion of the receptacle surface is configured with a straight sectional geometry.” ( Fig. 9 in Ahmed.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/08/2026 with respect to claim(s) 16, 18 have been considered but are not persuasive. The applicant amended claim 16 and argued on pages 9-10 that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 at (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