DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-29 & 32-33 are pending as amended on 05/15/26.
Response to Amendment
This final action is a response to the amendment filed on May 15, 2026. Claims 30-31 have been cancelled. Claims 10 & 15 have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly. Claims 32-33 have been added.
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 of this title, 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 10, 12-13, 15, 19-21, 23-29 & 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Kornrumpf, US 2006/0027536 in view of Tailor et al., US 2015/0219264.
With regard to claim 10, Kornrumpf teaches a known system which can heat a shrink sleeve onto a component, comprising an electrical heater (104/105) mounted against a sleeve (103) and an accompanying automated electronic control (108) which can retrieve an operating parameter input & then determine an output value for carrying out a given heating operation based on said input (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0020-0021, 0030-0033, 0054-0058 & FIGS. 1-5]). Conventional temperature feedback sensors – which can determine a temperature of either the heating element itself, or of the shrink tube (wherein detecting any such part of the environment, i.e. shrink tube, workpiece, ambient air, etc. would have been similarly obvious to one of ordinary skill), in order to properly adjust the supplied heat accordingly – may be included [0018]. The control unit software for the heating element may have various control modalities therein to select for a plurality of possible parameters [0020].
While this reference does not expressly disclose whether the temperature of the work is sensed prior to energizing the heater and then again during heating, this is believed to be implicit, or at the very least obvious to try, as measuring prior to and/or during heating would have been the only possibilities for making use of such feedback sensors. The prior art for example discusses a regulated time-temperature gradient for the process based on sensed temperature [0030-0033] which is believed to denote or otherwise suggest the claimed steps. With regard to controlling the amount of electric heat supplied, again, any of voltage, current, or heating time would have been prima facie obvious to try modifying, in order to predictably achieve said control via well-known means of adjustment.
While Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose that its electric heat shrink system comprises a central heating zone surrounded by paired peripheral heating zones (said pairs being serially/separately wired together), this was a common design in this art, as shown for example by Tailor, which teaches both the common design of controlled heating for a central zone and then separately controlled heating of peripheral zones (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0009, 0012, 0109-0110 & FIGS. 8-13, 17-20]), wherein the peripheral zones may also be serially/separately wired to one another (e.g. [0113, 0118-0119]), wherein either would have been obvious to try at any zone as these represent the only possibilities for wiring these sections into the controller (see also for example Figure 9, depicting a central zone, two pairs of serially connected zones, and then additional independent zones). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tailor with those of Kornrumpf, in order to provide typically desirable stepped heating zones which reduce air entrapment, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency and others can be wired separately as desired with predictable success. Tailor as noted above depicts several 7+-zone examples, and further, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B), wherein linking any such zones by either of these two limited wiring options requires only ordinary skill.
With regard to claims 12-13 & 19-20, Kornrumpf also teaches that users may provide real-time/predetermined inputs to this controller which are tailored to the identities (or “ID codes”) of a shrink sleeve & a cable joint or the like being formed therein (i.e. a type of material, or a size of said material) via a conventional user interface (throughout, e.g. [0020, 0031, 0057]).
With regard to claim 21, the system of the prior art also features the conventional attachment of the control unit to the heater via a cable/wired connection, as well as the previously mentioned temperature sensor or ‘chip’ at the heater.
With regard to claim 23, again, the prior art naturally teaches use of sensors to measure temperature of any component in the system, be it the heat source or the target(s) for heat exchange, wherein said measurements can naturally be used to drive heating in accordance with the detected measurement value, wherein the modification of supplied electric heat can of course be carried out by either adjusting electrical power or heating time (throughout, e.g. [0018, 0020, 0031]).
With regard to claims 24-27, again, said system can be also used to detect a type or size of cable joint and apply appropriate heat for a given type of shrink-sleeving over this joint as needed (throughout, e.g. [0020, 0031, 0057]).
With regard to claim 28, the system of the prior art is capable of pre-heating, heating, and “post-heating” in a conventional sequence [0032, 0041].
With regard to claim 29, while the prior art does not expressly disclose that its electrical heating system is operative to ‘track a location of the work’ (although it does include temperature sensors, which may generally detect the presence/location of a workpiece), the act of further incorporating conventional presence sensors, GPS sensors or the like for their inherent locating benefit would have been prima facie obvious and produced only a predictable result.
With regard to claim 15 (and 32), the teachings of Kornrumph & Tailor are detailed above, namely a shrink cover & electric heater system (which may have inner and outer heating zones), wherein the heater system of Kornrumpf further comprises a common temperature sensor & electronic controller, which are designed to run both preprogrammed sequences and modified sequences which are adjusted on the basis of the feedback from said temperature sensor (e.g. [0018-0021, 0030-0034 & 0041]). As noted above with regard to claim 28, the system of Kornrumpf also includes a controller programmed to perform pre-heating from a start temperature up to a shrink target temperature, heating at said temperature to at least begin shrinking, as well as “post-heating” to complete said shrinking before cooling back down in a conventional heat shrink sequence [0032, 0041]. While Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose whether the temperature of the work is sensed prior to energizing the heater and then again during heating, this is believed to be implicit, or at the very least obvious to try, as measuring prior to and/or during heating would have been the only possibilities for making use of such feedback sensors. The prior art for example discusses a regulated time-temperature gradient for the process based on sensed temperature [0030-0033] which is believed to denote or otherwise suggest the claimed steps. With regard to controlling the amount of electric heat supplied, again, any of voltage, current, or heating time would have been prima facie obvious to try modifying, in order to predictably achieve said control via well-known means of adjustment.
With regard to claim 33, as noted above, for example with respect to claim 10, while Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose that its electric heat shrink system comprises a central heating zone surrounded by paired peripheral heating zones (said pairs being serially/separately wired together), this was a common design in this art, as shown for example by Tailor, which teaches both the common design of controlled heating for a central zone and then separately controlled heating of peripheral zones (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0009, 0012, 0109-0110 & FIGS. 8-13, 17-20]), wherein the peripheral zones may also be serially/separately wired to one another (e.g. [0113, 0118-0119]), wherein either would have been obvious to try at any zone as these represent the only possibilities for wiring these sections into the controller (see also for example Figure 9, depicting a central zone, two pairs of serially connected zones, and then additional independent zones). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tailor with those of Kornrumpf, in order to provide typically desirable stepped heating zones which reduce air entrapment, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency and others can be wired separately as desired with predictable success. Tailor as noted above depicts several 7+-zone examples, and further, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B), wherein linking any such zones by either of these two limited wiring options requires only ordinary skill.
Claims 14 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornrumpf, US 2006/0027536 in view of Tailor et al., US 2015/0219264 and further in view of Mikli et al., DE 10 2012 207156.
The teachings of Kornrumpf & Tailor have been detailed above, including the use of a common temperature sensor & other input means for identifying the type/shape/size of the work, and while this reference does not expressly disclose the use of a barcode reader or the like to scan for data that reveals the identity or properties of the work, this too was conventional at the time of the instant invention, as shown for example by Mikli, which incorporates a barcode reader into its heat-shrinking device, which is capable of scanning a barcode on a shrink tube in order to obtain data about the tube [Page 10]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mikli with those of Kornrumpf & Tailor, in order to obtain data about the work that will help determine the amount of heating needed via a known alternative input means with predictable success.
Claims 10, 12-13, 15, 19-21, 23-29 & 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Kornrumpf, US 2006/0027536 in view of Simonsohn et al., WO 2019/011756.
With regard to claim 10, Kornrumpf teaches a known system which can heat a shrink sleeve onto a component, comprising an electrical heater (104/105) mounted against a sleeve (103) and an accompanying automated electronic control (108) which can retrieve an operating parameter input & then determine an output value for carrying out a given heating operation based on said input (throughout, e.g. abstract, [0020-0021, 0030-0033, 0054-0058 & FIGS. 1-5]). Conventional temperature feedback sensors – which can determine a temperature of either the heating element itself, or of the shrink tube (wherein detecting any such part of the environment, i.e. shrink tube, workpiece, ambient air, etc. would have been similarly obvious to one of ordinary skill), in order to properly adjust the supplied heat accordingly – may be included [0018]. The control unit software for the heating element may have various control modalities therein to select for a plurality of possible parameters [0020].
While this reference does not expressly disclose whether the temperature of the work is sensed prior to energizing the heater and then again during heating, this is believed to be implicit, or at the very least obvious to try, as measuring prior to and/or during heating would have been the only possibilities for making use of such feedback sensors. The prior art for example discusses a regulated time-temperature gradient for the process based on sensed temperature [0030-0033] which is believed to denote or otherwise suggest the claimed steps. With regard to controlling the amount of electric heat supplied, again, any of voltage, current, or heating time would have been prima facie obvious to try modifying, in order to predictably achieve said control via well-known means of adjustment.
While Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose that its electric heat shrink system comprises a central heating zone surrounded by paired peripheral heating zones (said pairs being serially/separately wired together), this was a common design in this art, as shown for example by Simonsohn, which teaches both the common design of controlled heating for a central zone and then separately controlled heating of peripheral zones (throughout, e.g. abstract, [Pg. 4 & FIGS. 3, 38]), wherein the peripheral zones may also be serially/separately wired to one another (e.g. [Pg. 17]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Simonsohn with those of Kornrumpf, in order to provide typically desirable stepped heating zones which reduce air entrapment, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency and others can be wired separately as desired with predictable success. Simonsohn teaches “at least one” additional heating zone beyond the central one, and further, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B), wherein linking any such zones by either of these two limited wiring options requires only ordinary skill.
With regard to claims 12-13 & 19-20, Kornrumpf also teaches that users may also provide real-time/predetermined inputs to this controller which are tailored to the identities (or “ID codes”) of a shrink sleeve & a cable joint or the like being formed therein (i.e. a type of material, or a size of said material) via a conventional user interface (throughout, e.g. [0020, 0031, 0057]).
With regard to claim 21, the system of the prior art also features the conventional attachment of the control unit to the heater via a cable/wired connection, as well as the previously mentioned temperature sensor or ‘chip’ at the heater.
With regard to claim 23, again, the prior art naturally teaches use of sensors to measure temperature of any component in the system, be it the heat source or the target(s) for heat exchange, wherein said measurements can naturally be used to drive heating in accordance with the detected measurement value, wherein the modification of supplied electric heat can of course be carried out by either adjusting electrical power or heating time (throughout, e.g. [0018, 0020, 0031]).
With regard to claims 24-27, again, said system can be also used to detect a type or size of cable joint and apply appropriate heat for a given type of shrink-sleeving over this joint as needed (throughout, e.g. [0020, 0031, 0057]).
With regard to claim 28, the system of the prior art is capable of pre-heating, heating, and “post-heating” in a conventional sequence [0032, 0041].
With regard to claim 29, while the prior art does not expressly disclose that its electrical heating system is operative to ‘track a location of the work’ (although it does include temperature sensors, which may generally detect the presence/location of a workpiece), the act of further incorporating conventional presence sensors, GPS sensors or the like for their inherent locating benefit would have been prima facie obvious and produced only a predictable result.
With regard to claim 15 (and 32), the teachings of Kornrumph & Simonsohn are detailed above, namely a shrink cover & electric heater system (which may have inner and outer heating zones), wherein the heater system of Kornrumpf further comprises a common temperature sensor & electronic controller, which are designed to run both preprogrammed sequences and modified sequences which are adjusted on the basis of the feedback from said temperature sensor (e.g. [0018-0021, 0030-0034 & 0041]). As noted above with regard to claim 28, the system of Kornrumpf also includes a controller programmed to perform pre-heating from a start temperature up to a shrink target temperature, heating at said temperature to at least begin shrinking, as well as “post-heating” to complete said shrinking before cooling back down in a conventional heat shrink sequence [0032, 0041]. While Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose whether the temperature of the work is sensed prior to energizing the heater and then again during heating, this is believed to be implicit, or at the very least obvious to try, as measuring prior to and/or during heating would have been the only possibilities for making use of such feedback sensors. The prior art for example discusses a regulated time-temperature gradient for the process based on sensed temperature [0030-0033] which is believed to denote or otherwise suggest the claimed steps. With regard to controlling the amount of electric heat supplied, again, any of voltage, current, or heating time would have been prima facie obvious to try modifying, in order to predictably achieve said control via well-known means of adjustment.
With regard to claim 33, as noted above, for example with respect to claim 10, while Kornrumpf does not expressly disclose that its electric heat shrink system comprises a central heating zone surrounded by paired peripheral heating zones (said pairs being serially/separately wired together), this was a common design in this art, as shown for example by Simonsohn, which teaches both the common design of controlled heating for a central zone and then separately controlled heating of peripheral zones (throughout, e.g. abstract, [Pg. 4 & FIGS. 3, 38]), wherein the peripheral zones may also be serially/separately wired to one another (e.g. [Pg. 17]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Simonsohn with those of Kornrumpf, in order to provide typically desirable stepped heating zones which reduce air entrapment, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency and others can be wired separately as desired with predictable success. Simonsohn teaches “at least one” additional heating zone beyond the central one, and further, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B), wherein linking any such zones by either of these two limited wiring options requires only ordinary skill.
Claims 14 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kornrumpf, US 2006/0027536 in view of Simonsohn et al., WO 2019/011756 and further in view of Mikli et al., DE 10 2012 207156.
The teachings of Kornrumpf & Simonsohn have been detailed above, including the use of a common temperature sensor & other input means for identifying the type/shape/size of the work, and while this reference does not expressly disclose the use of a barcode reader or the like to scan for data that reveals the identity or properties of the work, this too was conventional at the time of the instant invention, as shown for example by Mikli, which incorporates a barcode reader into its heat-shrinking device, which is capable of scanning a barcode on a shrink tube in order to obtain data about the tube [Page 10]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mikli with those of Kornrumpf & Simonsohn, in order to obtain data about the work that will help determine the amount of heating needed via a known alternative input means with predictable success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, “Remarks,” filed May 15, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are primarily drawn toward the claims as amended but are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 10, as noted previously, a variety of well-known designs for ‘inside-out’ electric heating of shrink sleeves via a multi-zone controlled heat sequence was well-known in this art at the time of Applicant’s invention, with a variety of conventional options for connecting these electrical heaters. With regard to Applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to connect some heating zones in series and others ‘separately’ (i.e. in parallel), this remains unpersuasive, as these of course represent the only two possibilities for connecting such electrical heater zones, each of which are repeatedly suggested by the prior art (see also for example exemplary Figure 9, depicting a central heating wire zone, two pairs of serially connected zones, and then additional, independent outer zones). While Applicant asserts that any wire connection teachings of the prior art ‘would necessarily apply to [every] set of heating elements’, this is unsubstantiated by explanation or evidence; rather, the prior art teaches the obvious suitability of either common design, either of which would be useful and have only a predictable result. As noted previously, Tailor (e.g. “As would be appreciated, each panel 92 can be connected to controller 33 individually, or, in some embodiments, to simplify operation, series of panels which require similar heating characteristics can be wired together and controlled as a group” [0113]) & Simonsohn (e.g. “The rings 114 may electrically be connected in series and/or in parallel”) each repeatedly suggest a plurality of paired zones for heating a shrink tube from a center outward which avoid air entrapment, wherein said zones could be connected either in series or separately, either of which would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in this art to try at any given connection, these being the only two possibilities for doing so and producing only a predictable result. One of ordinary skill could conceivably duplicate any number of these known sets of heater zones as desired, either as ‘independent’ sections, or as part of a serially connected interior, as desired, with only predictable results. Absent any showings to the contrary, the two established alternate means by which the heaters may be connected to their wiring leads are not considered to be patentably distinct.
With regard to previous claim 28 & amended claim 15 (and new claim 32), while Applicant argues that these limitations are not met by the prior art, it is not clear which ‘details’ are being referred to – a reiteration of all claim language amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. All applied art does in fact teach preheating the sleeve from a start temperature, up to a target ‘installation’ temperature that induces shrinking and heating at that target temperature to achieve at least some amount of shrinking as claimed, and then some additional heating after that initial amount of shrink to complete the shrinkage process, ultimately followed by cooling back down. As written, such a description would encompass most shrink sleeve application processes – any amount of heat applied prior to actual initiation of shrinking, then initiation, then completion. The language of claim 28 (also applied to amended claim 15 & new claim 32) remains rather broad; if Applicant is relying on some other disclosed feature of their particular heating sequence for patentability, it is recommended that it be explicitly set forth in the claim language, as limitations from the specification are not read into the claim language. The applied prior art expressly discloses the use of controller systems comprising both temperature sensors & heat regulators which adjust to sensed conditions throughout a rising/shrink-inducing/shrink-finishing/falling heating sequence, according to sensed conditions, in order to reliably shrink a sleeve onto an object in a well-known manner.
Applicant’s general assertion that ‘the controller of Kornrumpf is not capable of performing the claimed functions’ is unexplained/unclear. With regard to Applicant’s previous assertions that Kornrumpf fails to teach ‘modifying a parameter’, these were erroneous as shown previously. The prior art expressly teaches that “the quantity of heat produced by the heating element is readjusted on the basis of an acquired actual temperature” [0033]. And, while Kornrumpf is technically silent as to whether it is measuring temperature ‘prior to/after energizing its heater’, as stated previously, doing both is believed to be implicit, or otherwise obvious to try, as the measurement of temperature prior to and/or during heating clearly represent the only possible uses for these temperature feedback sensors and their associated regulation by the controller (a finding which Applicant did not refute). Tailor (e.g. [0099, 0123]) & Simonsohn (e.g. [Pg. 19]) also of course suggest the same standard practice of utilizing a controller which regulates any heat applied based on temperature feedback sensors. And Kornrumpf teaches a standard sequence of heating prior to shrinking, starting shrinking, and finishing shrinking as claimed. Therefore any argument that the prior art fails to teach or suggest retrieving relevant parameters and adjusting the steps of a conventionally controlled heat-shrink sequence (including for well-known multi-zone heaters) remain unpersuasive. The instant claim language as presently written is still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
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 JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights