DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10, 12-15, 17-21 & 23-31 are pending as amended on 06/03/25.
Response to Amendment
This non-final action is a response to the amendment filed on June 3, 2025 & RCE filed June 30, 2025. Claims 10 & 15 have been amended as a result of the previous action; the rejections have been redone accordingly. Claims 30-31 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 & 23-31 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 claims 10 & 15, 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 a pair of peripheral heating zones (this pair being serially connected 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]), wherein the peripheral zones may also be serially wired to one another (e.g. [0113, 118-119]). 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, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency.
With regard to claims 12-13 & 19-20, 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 claims 30-31, such designs were also suggested by Tailor as noted above, with several 7-zone examples [FIGS. 8, 13], and further, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B).
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 & 23-31 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 claims 10 & 15, 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 a pair of peripheral heating zones (this pair being serially connected 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 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, wherein those which have similar characteristics can predictably be wired in series for efficiency.
With regard to claims 12-13 & 19-20, 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 claims 30-31, simple duplication of this nature is generally held to be obvious (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)B).
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 June 3, 2025 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. Paired zones for heating a shrink tube from a center outward were conventional in this art, as shown above with regards to both Tailor & Simonsohn, as was their sensible suggestion toward linking pairs of zones in series for simplicity’s sake, and thus, the newly added limitations do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments that Kornrumpf somehow fails to teach or suggest a device with a control unit capable of ‘retrieving set-up parameters’ & ‘choosing/modifying a heating sequence’ as a result – i.e. sensing a condition, and controlling applied heat accordingly, this remains unpersuasive. For example, the prior art expressly discloses the use of a controller system comprising both temperature sensors & heat regulators which adjust throughout a heating sequence according to sensed conditions as claimed. Applicant’s assertion that Kornrumpf fails to teach ‘modifying a parameter’ is erroneous; as noted 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. The instant claims as written remain are still not considered to be patentably distinguishable over the teachings & suggestions of the prior art.
Conclusion
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