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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 15 2025, June 18 2025, April 10 2024, December 5 2023 and September 23 2022 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on April 13th 2026 is acknowledged.
The restriction is deemed proper, and therefore made FINAL.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-14 and 20-24 are pending.
Claims 15-19 are cancelled.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 1-14 and 21-24 are examined as follow:
Specification
The title of the invention is being objection for too long.
The following title is suggested: “METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THROUGH TRANSMISSION CONNECTING A STRUCTURE”.
Claim Interpretation
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.
In claim 1, the limitation “means of a light transmission bonding technology” has NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph, because it recited “a light transmission bonding technology” as sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malhan et al (US2008/0054439A1) herein set forth as Malhan.
Regarding claim 1, Malhan discloses a connecting device (refer to fig.2) comprising:
a) a first tool (#2 and bottom #43, fig.1) mounted to a first support (#10, fig.1-2) retaining the first component (#30, fig.1-2); and
b) a second tool (#1 and top #43, fig.1) mounted to a second support (#7, #8, #9, fig.1-2) retaining the second component (#33, fig.1-2), wherein
c) the first tool (#2 and bottom #43, fig.1) and the second tool (#1 and top #43, fig.1) are movable with respect to each other (refer to the movement arrow annotated in fig.2) and
d) the first tool (#2 and bottom #43, fig.1) is at least partly made of or comprises a layer of a thermal isolator (#2, fig,1) having a high thermal resistance (refer to Paragraph 0092 cited: “…the upper and lower high thermal conductivity insulating non-planar substrates 1, 2 is made up of a substantially rectangular shapes, with all the external connection buses on the upper high thermal conductivity insulating substrate…”).
PNG
media_image1.png
453
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
584
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding to the limitation in the preamble “…a through transmission connecting device for connecting a first component comprising a light absorbing material to a second component comprising a light transmissive material by means of a light transmission bonding technology, the through transmission…”, the 102 is made as set forth above, no patentable weight is given to intended use limitation cited in the preamble, because a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). In this case, the first and second component are merely intended use.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 8-10, 13-14, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US10286608B2) herein set forth as Watanabe, in view of Malhan et al (US2008/0054439A1) herein set forth as Malhan.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a through transmission connecting device (refer to fig. 72) for connecting a first component (a laser beam absorbing plastic plate #302, fig. 72) comprising a light absorbing material (refer to the term “laser beam absorbing plastic” for laser beam absorbing plastic plate #302, fig.72) to a second component (a laser beam transmitting plastic plate #303, fig.72) comprising a light transmissive material (refer to the term “laser beam transmitting plastic” for laser transmitting plastic plate #303, fig.72) by means of a light transmission bonding technology (refer to laser beam #305 in fig.72), the through transmission connecting device (refer to fig. 72) comprising:
a) a first tool (refer to the “counter force” that acted on #301 to counter the pressing source that acted on #304 that generated the “abutting” in fig.72 , which Col 1 line 31-35 cited: “The pressure member 304 is pressed downward by an unshown pressing source, for example, an air cylinder, to thereby cause the abutting faces of the laser-beam-absorbing plastic plate 302 and the laser-beam-transmitting plastic plate 303 to closely contact”, Examiner note: it mean compression, compression required two tools on each side to achieve) mounted to a first support (supporting base #301, fig.72) retaining the first component (a laser beam absorbing plastic plate #302, fig. 72); and
b) a second tool (refer to the unshown pressing source acted on pressure member 304, refer to Col 1 line 31-35 cited: “The pressure member 304 is pressed downward by an unshown pressing source, for example, an air cylinder, to thereby cause the abutting faces of the laser-beam-absorbing plastic plate 302 and the laser-beam-transmitting plastic plate 303 to closely contact”, Examiner note: it mean compression, compression required two tools on each side to achieve) mounted to a second support (pressuring member #304, fig.72) retaining the second component (a laser beam transmitting plastic plate #303, fig.72), wherein
c) the first tool and the second tool (refer to the “abutting” action acted on pressure member #304, and #301 in fig.72, refer to Col 1 line 31-35 cited: “The pressure member 304 is pressed downward by an unshown pressing source, for example, an air cylinder, to thereby cause the abutting faces of the laser-beam-absorbing plastic plate 302 and the laser-beam-transmitting plastic plate 303 to closely contact”, Examiner note: it mean compression, compression required two tools on each side to achieve) are movable with respect to each other (referring the “abutting “ actiont of #301 and #304 in fig. 72). (Refer to Fig.16 as evident of such 1st tool and 2nd tool is disclosed by Watanabe Col 1 line 31-35 above)
PNG
media_image3.png
280
427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
504
561
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Watanabe does not specifically disclose d) the first tool is at least partly made of or comprises a layer of a thermal isolator having a high thermal resistance.
In the similar field of connecting device, Malhan discloses d) the first tool (#2 and bottom #43, fig.1) is at least partly made of or comprises a layer of a thermal isolator (#2, fig,1) having a high thermal resistance (refer to the term “high thermal conductivity insulating” cited in the paragraph 0092 below) (refer to Paragraph 0092 cited: “…the upper and lower high thermal conductivity insulating non-planar substrates 1, 2 is made up of a substantially rectangular shapes, with all the external connection buses on the upper high thermal conductivity insulating substrate…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s invention with the first tool is at least partly made of or comprises a layer of a thermal isolator having a high thermal resistance, as taught by Malhan, in order to provide thermal isolation from the heat generated, such that would protect the rest of the structure for the invention form the heat, doing so would reduce the chances of damaging the invention or accidental injury for the operator.
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a thickness in the range of 1 mm < ti < 10 cm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with a thickness in the range of 1 mm < ti < 10 cm, is merely a change of a thickness for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, using different thickness of thermal insulator to sure enough insulation thickness to prevent melting or damage of other parts or structure, such that would not melt or damaged the invention or produce defected or flawed product.
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a thickness in the range of 2.5 mm < ti < 7.5 cm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal isolator with a thickness in the range of 2.5 mm < ti < 7.5 cm, is merely a change of a thickness for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, using different thickness of thermal insulator to sure enough insulation to prevent melting or damage of other parts or structure, such that would not melt or damaged the invention or produce defected or flawed product.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a thickness in the range of 5 mm < ti < 5 cm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal isolator with a thickness in the range of 5 mm < ti < 5 cm, is merely a change of a thickness for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, using different thickness of thermal insulator to sure enough insulation to prevent melting or damage of other parts or structure, such that would not melt or damaged the invention or produce defected or flawed product.
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein at least one of the first support and the second support are at least partly made of a metal.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s invention with wherein at least one of the first support and the second support are at least partly made of a metal, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, using metal for better structural strength and wear resistance, such that would improve the operational life span of the invention.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein at least one of the first support and the second support are at least partly made of steel or aluminum.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s invention with wherein at least one of the first support and the second support are at least partly made of steel or aluminum, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, using steel or aluminum for better structural strength and wear resistance, such that would improve the operational life span of the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe further discloses wherein the light absorbing material is a plastic (refer to the term “a laser beam absorbing plastic plate #302”, fig. 72).
Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the first component has a high thermal conductivity at least in a connecting portion in the range of X> 50 W/(m K).
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of thermal conductivity of Watanabe’s first component, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of routine optimization, refer to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05 II. In order to optimize how fast and how large the melting on the first component, such that would optimizing the welding of the plastic plates, and further optimizing the welding speed and also reduce defective product from being produced at the same time.
Regarding claim 22, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator hinders thermal conduction.
In the similar field of connecting device, Malhan further discloses wherein the thermal isolator hinders thermal conduction(refer to Paragraph 0092 cited: “…the upper and lower high thermal conductivity insulating non-planar substrates 1, 2 is made up of a substantially rectangular shapes, with all the external connection buses on the upper high thermal conductivity insulating substrate…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s invention with thermal isolator that hinders thermal conduction, as taught by Malhan, in order to provide thermal isolation from the heat generated, such that would protect the rest of the structure for the invention form the heat, doing so would reduce the chances of damaging the invention or accidental injury for the operator.
Regarding claim 24, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe further discloses wherein the light transmission bonding technology is simultaneous light or laser transmission welding (refer to laser beam #305 in fig.72 and abstract disclosure of the usage of the laser cited: “…a welding controller for causing a laser beam to be irradiated at the heat generation portion using the laser beam irradiation unit to thereby cause the heat generation portion to generate heat, and welding abutting faces of a welding area of the plurality of plastic components with heat that is generated …”).
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US10286608B2) herein set forth as Watanabe, in view of Malhan et al (US2008/0054439A1) herein set forth as Malhan, and further in view of Yamazaki (US4597161) herein set forth as Yamazaki.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a thermal conductivity of k<2 W/(m K).
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator has a thermal conductivity of K<2W/(mK) (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…” Examiner note: 6x10-4 cal/sec/cm/degree C is equal to 0.006978 W/M.K).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with the thermal conductivity of the thermal isolator to k<2 W/(m K), as taught by Yamazaki, In order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding, such that would increase the operational life span of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a thermal conductivity of k<1 W/(m K).
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator has a thermal conductivity of K<1W/(mK) (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…” Examiner note: 6x10-4 cal/sec/cm/degree C is equal to 0.006978 W/M.K).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with the thermal conductivity of the thermal isolator to k<1 W/(m K), as taught by Yamazaki, In order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding, such that would increase the operational life span of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically discloses wherein the thermal isolator has a melting point of Tmp> 2000oC.
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator has a melting point (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…” Examiner note: 6x10-4 cal/sec/cm/degree C is equal to 0.006978 W/M.K).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with a melting point, as taught by Yamazaki, In order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding, such that would increase the operational life span of the invention.
However, since Malhan discloses the thermal isolator is high thermal resistance, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thermal conductivity of the thermal isolator has a melting point of tmp> 2000oC, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of routine optimization of what melting point needed for what material being connected, refer to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP 2144.05 II. In order to optimize the thermal isolator melting point depend on what material being connected, such that would that would allow the isolator to perform insulation that meet requirement for heat generated to connect material that required certain temperature.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the thermal isolator has a melting point of tmp> 250oC.
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator has a melting point of tmp> 250oC (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with a melting point of tmp> 250oC, as taught by Yamazaki, In order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding and the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator is a thermoplastic material.
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator is a thermoplastic material (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…”, examiner note: PEEK is a thermoplastic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with a thermoplastic material, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding and the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not disclose wherein the thermal isolator is a polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
In the similar field of connecting device, Yamazaki discloses wherein the thermal isolator is a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (refer to Col 8 line 19-21 cited: “…polyether ether ketone (PEEK) resin (thermal conductivity 6.times.10.sup.-4 cal/sec/cm/.degree.C., melting point 334.degree. C.)…”, examiner note: PEEK is a thermoplastic material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s thermal isolator with a polyether ether ketone (PEEK), as taught by Yamazaki, In order to provide the small thermal conductivity and high melting point to prevent the heating damage to the surrounding and the invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US10286608B2) herein set forth as Watanabe, in view of Malhan et al (US2008/0054439A1) herein set forth as Malhan, and further in view of Tan et al (US2010/0162665A1) herein set forth as Tan.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the first tool further comprises a non-stick coating adjacent to the thermal isolator such that the non-stick coating is present at least in a contact area of the first tool with the first component.
In the similar field of plastic welding, Tan discloses the use of non-stick ink on area that do prevent a plastic weld (refer to Paragraph 0033 cited: “…the process prints a non-stick ink on a predetermined non-weld area. The non-stick ink applied in step 120 may be or include, for example, a mold-release agent such as silicone, paraffin, and/or a fluorocarbon. The purpose of the non-stick ink is to selectively prevent a plastic weld…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s first tool with comprises a non-stick coating adjacent to the thermal isolator such that the non-stick coating is present at least in a contact area of the first tool with the first component, as taught by Tan, in order to control when the plastic welding happen and where would the plastic would stick to, such that would reduce sticking on the tools that will cause maintenance issue or defected product when product stick to the invention’s tools.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Watanabe, Malhan and Tan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 11, Watanabe, Malhan or Tan does not disclose wherein the non-stick coating consists of polytetrafluoroethylene.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tan’s non-stick coating with a known material such as polytetrafluoroethylene, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In this case, control when the plastic welding happen and where would the plastic would stick to, such that would reduce sticking on the tools that will cause maintenance issue or defected product when product stick to the invention’s tools.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al (US10286608B2) herein set forth as Watanabe, in view of Malhan et al (US2008/0054439A1) herein set forth as Malhan, and further in view of Hirschvogel et al (US6270083B1) herein set forth as Hirschvogel.
Regarding claim 23, the modification of Watanabe and Malhan discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Watanabe or Malhan does not specifically disclose wherein the first component is a plastic matrix material filled with graphite.
In the similar field of plastic welding, Hirschvogel discloses a component is a plastic matric material filled with graphite (refer to claim 18 cited: “…herein said reinforcing plastic foil is welded to said at least one flexible graphite layer using elevated temperatures“).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Watanabe’s first component with a plastic matrix material filled with graphite, as taught by Hirschvogel, in order to provide a better tensile strength for the invention, such that would provide better protection to the product and increase the operational life span of the product made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilkerson et al (US2010/0167893) discloses a plastic bag manufacturing process that involve using non-stick coating that read on some of the dependent claims.
Brunnecket et al (US8759710B2) discloses a connecting device that use laser to joint two plastic component that may read on some of the limitation cited in the independent claim,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 19th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights