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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 1-15 and 19-20; with claims 21-23 withdrawn in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 was acknowledged and has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-15 and 19-23 are pending in the application with claims 21-23 withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-15 and 19-20 are as follow.
The previous office action sent out on 07/16/2025, which was examined by examiner James Sims. The present application is now being examined by examiner Kuangyue Chen as follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, under claim 19, the “one or more sacrificial temperature sensors”, and under claim 19, the “a feedback circuit” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Under [0020] line 1 contains the information "an apparatus enclosure 116"; under [0022] line 9 contains the information "the enclosure 116". Numerical 116 been rejected because it been used to identify different items in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an HMI device” in line 2. We should not be utilizing acronyms without first using the whole term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A. Claim limitation “an HMI device supported on the enclosure… configured to receive user input” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “to receive user input” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 10-11 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0026], Figs. 2 and 4, the HMI 126 is a touchscreen display.
B. Claim limitation “a weld controller configured to control the modular power supply system” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “to control the modular power supply system” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 12 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0026], Fig. 2, a PLC 140 (i.e., a weld controller) supported on the apparatus enclosure 116.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first and second power supply modules” in vaporous places. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first, second, and third power supply modules” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first, second, third, and fourth power supply modules” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the second, third, and fourth power supply modules” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the same voltage and current ratings” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “voltage rating” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “voltage rating” and the same voltage and current ratings mentioned in claim 5 line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the second, third, and fourth power supply modules” in various places. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “each power supply module” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “each power supply module” and a first power supply module mentioned in claim1 line 4 are? and it is unclear what the relation between this “each power supply module” and a second power supply module mentioned in claim1 line 4 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an HMI device” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. The industrial standards of this acronym (HMI) are indefinite and it can be change over time. Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the enclosure” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the power supply system” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the interface” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the current output” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the resistance welding power supply” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The rest of the claims are also rejected because each claim depends on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1)/ 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Henderkott et al. (US 2021/0276119 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 19, Henderkott et al. disclose a resistance welding apparatus (resistance welder 350, [0040], Fig 3) for welding thermoplastic parts together at a weld interface in which a resistor is disposed between the thermoplastic parts, the resistance welding apparatus comprising:
a resistance welding power supply system (a power supply 352, [0040], Fig 3) configured to selectively output current (operation parameters 342 may, for example, include… electrical current 346, [0043], Fig 3) to the resistor (bonding probes 390, [0040], Fig 3);
a weld controller (controller circuitry 340, [0040], Fig 3) configured to control the power supply system to selectively output current to the resistor to repeatably execute weld routines (controller circuitry 340 may control operation parameters 342 of the bonding system 300, [0043], Fig 3), wherein the weld controller is configured to connect to one or more sacrificial temperature sensors (temperature sensor 366, [0064], Fig 3) that may be disposed at the interface of the thermoplastic parts while they are being welded together to output a temperature signal representative of temperature of the weld interface during welding (Clearly, temperature sensor 366 is capable of been “disposed at the interface of the thermoplastic parts while they are being welded together to output a temperature signal representative of temperature of the weld interface during welding” as claimed); and
a feedback circuit providing information about the current output from the resistance welding power supply during execution of weld routine (processor circuitry, and sensor circuitry may control the bonding process based on a plurality of inputs and feedback, for example, feedback from sensors of the sensor circuitry sensed during the bonding process, [0021]);
wherein the weld controller is configured to selectively control weld routines based on feedback from either of (1) one or more sacrificial temperature sensors and (2) the feedback circuit (controller 340 may control the electrical current 346 and/or the electrical voltage 348 supplied to the cover sheet probe 310 based on… sensed feedback provided from the sensor circuitry 378, [0044]).
Claim 20, further comprising a memory configured to store the feedback during each weld routine (The controller circuitry 340 may include at least one processor circuitry 344 in communication with memory storage circuitry 374, [0047], Fig 3).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowman et al. (US 2006/0182954 A1) in view of Dawley (US 2020/0275555 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Bowman et al. disclose a resistance welding apparatus for welding thermoplastic parts together at a weld interface in which a resistor is disposed between the thermoplastic parts, the resistance welding apparatus comprising:
a power supply system (an appropriate source of electric power, [0041]); and
leads for electrically connecting the power supply system to the resistor (electric resistance heating wire 6, [0072], Fig 1a) to output current from the power supply system to the resistor (The electric heating element can be energised by connecting it to an appropriate source of electric power, [0041]);
Bowman et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the power supply system is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module;
wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel.
Dawley teaches a power supply system (a battery module 12, [0029], Fig 1) is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module (see “a first power supply module” of the battery cells 24 and “a second power supply module” of the battery cells 24 in Fig 1, [0034]; 24 includes corresponding cell electrode terminals 26 having alternating positive and negative polarities, [0042], Fig 1);
wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already) and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor (“the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already); (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already) and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor (“the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already); (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already); and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already) in parallel (Clearly, “the resistance welding apparatus is” capable of “selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel” as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowman et al. with Dawley’s further teaching of the power supply system is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module; wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel; because Dawley teaches, in Para. [0003] of providing a power system with controller to excellently monitors and controls the flow of electrical energy to and from individual cells of the module during operation.
Claim 2, wherein the resistance welding apparatus selectively configurable in any of the first configuration, the second configuration, the third configuration, and the fourth configuration (Clearly, “the resistance welding apparatus” is capable of “selectively configurable in any of the first configuration, the second configuration, the third configuration, and the fourth configuration” as claimed).
Claim 3, wherein the modular power supply system further comprises a third power supply module (see “a third power supply module” of the battery cells 24 in Fig 1, [0034]; 24 includes corresponding cell electrode terminals 26 having alternating positive and negative polarities, [0042], Fig 1, Dawley) and the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable to connect the first, second, and third power supply modules to the resistor in at least one of parallel and series (Clearly, “the resistance welding apparatus is” capable of “selectively configurable to connect the first, second, and third power supply modules to the resistor in at least one of parallel and series” as claimed).
Claim 4, wherein the modular power supply system further comprises a fourth power supply module (see “a fourth power supply module” of the battery cells 24 in Fig 1, [0034]; 24 includes corresponding cell electrode terminals 26 having alternating positive and negative polarities, [0042], Fig 1, Dawley) and the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable to connect the first, second, third, and fourth power supply modules to the resistor in at least one parallel and series (Clearly, “the resistance welding apparatus is” capable of “selectively configurable to connect the first, second, third, and fourth power supply modules to the resistor in at least one parallel and series” as claimed).
Claim 5, wherein the second, third, and fourth power supply modules have the same voltage and current ratings and the first power supply module has different voltage and current ratings (from the BSM 50 include cell voltages, temperatures, thermal regulation and/or cell balancing control signals, and other application-specific values, as well as control signals from the BSM 50 that command a particular change of state of the battery module 12, [0031], Dawley).
Claim 6, wherein voltage rating of the first power supply module is less than the voltage rating of the second, third, and fourth power supply modules and the current rating of the first power supply module is greater than the current rating of the second, third, and fourth power supply modules (from the BSM 50 include cell voltages, temperatures, thermal regulation and/or cell balancing control signals, and other application-specific values, as well as control signals from the BSM 50 that command a particular change of state of the battery module 12, [0031], Dawley).
Claims 1 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderkott et al. (US 2021/0276119 A1) in view of Dawley (US 2020/0275555 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Henderkott et al. disclose a resistance welding apparatus (resistance welder 350, [0040], Fig 3) for welding thermoplastic parts together at a weld interface in which a resistor is disposed between the thermoplastic parts, the resistance welding apparatus comprising:
a power supply system (a power supply 352, [0040], Fig 3); and
leads for electrically connecting the power supply system to the resistor (bonding probes 390, [0040], Fig 3) to output current from the power supply system to the resistor (bonding probes 390 may be selected for use in a bonding operation and electrically connected to the power supply 352 to create a bonding circuit, [0041]);
Henderkott et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose: the power supply system is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module;
wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel.
Dawley teaches a power supply system (a battery module 12, [0029], Fig 1) is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module (see “a first power supply module” of the battery cells 24 and “a second power supply module” of the battery cells 24 in Fig 1, [0034]; 24 includes corresponding cell electrode terminals 26 having alternating positive and negative polarities, [0042], Fig 1);
wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already) and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor (“the resistor” taught by Henderkott et al. already); (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Henderkott et al. already) and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor (“the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already); (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Bowman et al. already); and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor (“the leads connect the power supply to the resistor” taught by Henderkott et al. already) in parallel (Clearly, “the resistance welding apparatus is” capable of “selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel” as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Henderkott et al. with Dawley’s further teaching of the power supply system is a modular power supply system comprising a first power supply module and a second power supply module; wherein the resistance welding apparatus is selectively configurable in at least three of (i) a first configuration in which the leads connect the first power supply module to the resistor and the second power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (ii) a second configuration in which the leads connect the second power supply module to the resistor and the first power supply module is disconnected from the resistor; (iii) a third configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in series; and (iv) a fourth configuration in which the leads connect the first and second power supply modules to the resistor in parallel; because Dawley teaches, in Para. [0003] of providing a power system with controller to excellently monitors and controls the flow of electrical energy to and from individual cells of the module during operation.
Claim 7, further comprising an apparatus enclosure, the modular power supply system being received in the apparatus enclosure (battery module 12 includes the battery cells 24… enclosed in or surrounded by a protective housing, two endplates 29, [0041], Fig 1, Dawley).
Claim 8, wherein the apparatus enclosure has a side wall and each power supply module has a positive terminal connector and a negative terminal connector supported on the side wall (24 includes corresponding cell electrode terminals 26 having alternating positive and negative polarities, [0042], Fig 1, Dawley).
Claims 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderkott et al. (US 2021/0276119 A1) in view of Dawley (US 2020/0275555 A1) as applied to claim 7 further in view of Chou (US 5,142,123) as evidentiary evidence.
Regarding Claim 9, Bowman et al. in view of Dawley teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 9.
Chou as evidentiary evidence teaches the apparatus enclosure (a rectangular housing 1… for receiving a battery set 10, Col 2 line 8-10, Fig 1. Note: “the apparatus enclosure” taught by Dawley already), and Claim 9, wherein the apparatus enclosure has a side wall (details in Fig 1) and the resistance welding apparatus (“the resistance welding apparatus” taught by Bowman et al. already) further comprises a power connector input on the side wall (A power socket 8 is made on the side wall portion of the rectangular housing 1, Col 2 line 25-26, Fig 1) configured to connect the modular power supply system to a main power source (copper plates 40 and 41 are carried by the posts and are directly in contact with the battery set, Col 2 line 14-15; connecting an external AC power source to the copper plates 40 and 41, Col 2 line 26-27, Fig 1. Note: “the modular power supply system” taught by Dawley already).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Henderkott et al. in view of Dawley with Chou’s further teaching of Claim 9; because Chou teaches, in Col 2 line 7-28, of providing a power socket on the side wall portion of the housing 1 for convenient during operational process.
Claim 10, further comprising an HMI device supported on the enclosure (a user interface, such as a display screen displaying a rendering, [0045], Henderkott et al. Note: “the enclosure” taught by Dawley already).
Claim 11, wherein the HMI device is configured to receive user input selecting a weld control routine (the controller 340 may control the voltage and current levels of electrical power supplied by the resistance welder 350, [0044]; a user interface, such as a display screen displaying a rendering, [0045], Henderkott et al.).
Claim 12, further comprising a weld controller (controller circuitry 340, [0040], Fig 3) configured to control the modular power supply system to execute a weld control routine selected by user input to the HMI device (location 372, for example, may be based on user input, [0043], Fig 3).
Claim 13, further comprising a connector (sensor circuitry 378, [0043], Fig 3) for connecting the weld controller to resistance welding tooling including a press (a press system 380, [0040], Fig 3; operation parameters 342 may be used by the controller circuitry 340 to manage and control the bonding process. The operation parameters 342 may, for example, include pressing force 370, [0043]), the weld controller configured to at least one of control the press and receive feedback from the press (based on predetermined settings, user entered values, or sensed feedback provided from the sensor circuitry 378, [0044], Fig 3).
Claim 14, further comprising a memory configured to store feedback from the press during each weld control routine executed by the HMI (The controller circuitry 340 may include at least one processor circuitry 344 in communication with memory storage circuitry 374, [0047], Fig 3).
Claim 15, wherein the memory is configured to store information about at least one of voltage and current outputted by the resistance welding apparatus during each weld control routine executed by the HMI (the controller circuitry 340 may control operation parameters 342 of the bonding system 300, [0043], Fig 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST. 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights