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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that by changing the limitation “processing means” to processor 112f is no longer invoked, and they cite to paragraph 72. However, par. 72 is reciting a microcontroller/CPU. The term processor has a commonly understood structure that is capable of computing and calculating. It is unclear how a CPU has the structure that is capable of generating an electromagnetic field for welding or sensing the electromagnetic field. Therefore, 112f is still invoked because it is unclear how a processor can perform welding and sensing simultaneously. And since the specification only defines the processor as a CPU or digital signal processor (par. 72) this results in a 112a written description rejection.
Applicants argue that by changing the limitation “movement means” to movement system 112f is no longer invoked. The Office disagrees. The limitation “system” is a generic placeholder and therefore, the 112f interpretation is maintained.
Applicants argue the PHOSITA would not combine Labordus and Lunden since they teach two different and contradictory technical solutions. Labordus teaches a system with two separate coils, a joining inductor for welding and a sensing inductor for pre-scanning. And these coils perform sequentially not simultaneously.
Applicants further state that Lunden teaches a system with a single, dual-function work coil that both heats a workpiece and simultaneously senses temperature changes by measuring the coil's impedance. Thus, these two prior arts represent competing design philosophies.
The Office disagrees. Applicants are correct that Labordus discloses an embodiment where the two coils operate sequentially. However, in paragraph 22, they state "Measuring the strength of the generated electromagnetic field in the form of eddy currents is carried out by the sensing inductor. Another embodiment however comprises further measuring the field strength generated by the joining inductor in the moulded part(s) and determining a discrepancy between the measured field strength of the joining inductor and the field strength suitable for joining." This requires both the joining inductor and sensing inductor to be simultaneously operating in order for the field strength generated by the joining inductor to be detected by the sensing inductor.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to Lunden's teachings and method of welding and sensing simultaneously from the same coil since Labordus' design philosophy is not limited to sequential operation but discloses simultaneous operation.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites processor and claim 4 recites movement system.
Processor: 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: specification par. 72 cites “The processing means may comprise a programmable device, such as a microcontroller, central processing unit (CPU), digital signal processor (DSP).” The processor will be interpreted to be as a programmable device such as a microcontroller.
Movement system: The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “movement system” will be interpreted as any structure capable of movement.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 further recites the limitations processor. While applicants disclose that the processing means may comprise a programmable device such as a processor (par. 72), it does not disclose how this programmable device has the structure that is capable of performing the functions of generating an electromagnetic field for welding while simultaneously measuring a parameter of that electromagnetic field.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 further recites the limitations movement systems. The term “system” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the system produces movement.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of movement. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
Remaining claims are rejected due to dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “movement system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“Movement system”. The structure of the particle separation device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “movement system” will be interpreted as any structure capable of producing movement.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labordus (US 20210197497 A1) in view of Lunden (US 5573613 A).
Claim 1. Labordus discloses a system for controlled induction welding (joining inductors, abstract) of at least one weld seam area (weld performed in the area of the contact surface, par. 47, Fig. 1) of at least two surfaces of at least one workpiece (two contact surfaces, Fig. 1) made of a carbon fiber composite material or carbon fiber reinforced plastics (thermoplastic resin reinforced with carbon fiber, par. 47), the system comprising:
an inductor (inductor coil 1, Fig. 1) configured to be arranged in conjunction with the at least one workpiece so that the inductor is electromagnetically coupled to the at least one workpiece (inductor coil heats the contact surface through eddy current in the moulded parts, par. 49) and
a processor (inductor 1) configured to:
generate an electromagnetic field by applying an alternating voltage to the inductor so as to inductively heat at least one of the surfaces to a process temperature so that the weld seam area is welded together (joining inductor 20 has an inductor coil 22 that generates an electromagnetic field 23. This field 23 causes eddy currents 24 to occur in the moulded parts (3, 4), in particular in their contact surface, par. 49),
simultaneously as the inductor heats the at least one workpiece to the process temperature through the generated electromagnetic field, measure at least one parameter of the at least one workpiece at least based on the generated electromagnetic field (sensing inductors can be used to measure the edge effect during welding, par. 50, wherein the sensing inductor is used to measure temperature rise, par. 20),
detect a change of the at least one parameter (sensing inductor is used to measure temperature rise, par. 20), and
determine a temperature estimation of the at least one workpiece based on said detected change of the at least one parameter (sensing inductor can be used to determine the temperature, par. 20).
Labordus does not explicitly disclose that the same processor is used to measure the workpiece and weld the workpieces.
Lunden discloses induction welding of thermoplastic wherein the circuit (Fig. 5a) has two coils, one for heating 30’ and one 30 for sensing the electromagnetic waves (Fig. 5a).
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 Labordus to incorporate the teachings of Lunden and have the same circuit power both induction coil. Doing so would have the benefit of having an improved control system for continuously and automatically maintain the temperature in the bond line (col 2 liens 30-35, Lunden).
Claim 13. Labordus discloses a method for induction welding (joining inductors, abstract) at least two surfaces of at least one workpiece (weld performed in the area of the contact surface, par. 47, Fig. 1) using the system as defined in any one of the preceding claims, comprising the steps of:
providing an inductor (inductor coil 1, Fig. 1) configured to be arranged in conjunction with the at least one workpiece so that the inductor is electromagnetically coupled to the at least one workpiece (inductor coil heats the contact surface through eddy current in the moulded parts, par. 49),
providing a processor (inductor 1), generating an electromagnetic field by applying an alternating voltage to the inductor so as to inductively heat at least one of the surfaces to a process temperature so that the weld seam area is welded together (joining inductor 20 has an inductor coil 22 that generates an electromagnetic field 23. This field 23 causes eddy currents 24 to occur in the moulded parts (3, 4), in particular in their contact surface, par. 49), and
simultaneously as the inductor heats the at least one workpiece to the process temperature through the generated electromagnetic field, measuring a change of at least one parameter of the at least one workpiece at least based on the generated electromagnetic field (sensing inductors can be used to measure the edge effect during welding, par. 50, wherein the sensing inductor is used to measure temperature rise, par. 20),
detecting a change of the at least one parameter (sensing inductor is used to measure temperature rise, par. 20), and
determining a temperature estimation of the at least one workpiece based on said detected change (sensing inductor can be used to determine the temperature, par. 20),
wherein the at least one workpiece is made of a carbon fiber composite material or carbon fiber reinforced plastics (thermoplastic resin reinforced with carbon fiber, par. 47).
Labordus does not explicitly disclose that the same processor is used to measure the workpiece and weld the workpieces.
Lunden discloses induction welding of thermoplastic wherein the circuit (Fig. 5a) has two coils, one for heating 30’ and one 30 for sensing the electromagnetic waves (Fig. 5a).
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 Labordus to incorporate the teachings of Lunden and have the same circuit power both induction coil. Doing so would have the benefit of having an improved control system for continuously and automatically maintain the temperature in the bond line (col 2 liens 30-35, Lunden).
Claim 2. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to control, based on said determined temperature estimation, the operation of the system (field strength generated by the joining inductor is adjusted based on the sensing inductor, par. 49).
Claim 3. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the control of the operation of the system at least comprises altering the applied voltage (control of the field strength involves adjusting the voltage supplied to the joining inductor, par. 49), altering the frequency and/or causing a movement of the inductor.
Claim 4. Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises a movement system configured to cause a movement of the inductor (inductors can be moved, par. 39), and
wherein the processor is further configured to control the movement of the inductor ().
Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose that the processor control the movement of the inductor.
Lunden further discloses a control system for operating the apparatus (col 3 lines 40-44).
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 Labordus in view of Lunden to incorporate the teachings of Lunden and have the control system operate the movement of the inductor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing a control system to operate the movement of the inductors.
Claim 5. Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose the system according to claim 1, further comprising a pressure member configured to apply a pressure to the system (moulded parts are brought together under pressure, par. 31), and wherein the processor is further configured to control the applied pressure.
Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose that the processor control the applied pressure.
Lunden further discloses a control system for operating the apparatus (col 3 lines 40-44).
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 Labordus in view of Lunden to incorporate the teachings of Lunden and have the control system control the applied pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing a control system to control the pressure applied to the moulded parts.
Claim 7. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is in operative communication with the inductor (circuit controls the inductor’s operation, Lunden)
Claim 9. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to provide a voltage/current with a certain frequency to the inductor (circuit provides a current at a frequency to the inductors, Fig. 5a, col 5 lines 1-10, Lunden).
Claim 10. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 1 wherein the at least one parameter measured by the processor is at least one of a frequency, a phase angle, a duty cycle, a resistance, an inductance, a peak, mean or root mean square value of a current, a power (control of the field strength involves adjusting the voltage supplied to the joining inductor, par. 49), and/or energy.
Claim 11. Labordus in view of Lunden discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the inductor comprises one single coil (inductor coil 1, par. 47).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labordus in view of Lunden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lucia, O., Navarro, D., Guillen, P., Sarnago, H., & Lucia, S. (2019). Deep learning-based magnetic coupling detection for advanced induction heating appliances. IEEE access, 7, 181668-181677.
Claim 6. Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine the temperature estimation by:
using at least one neural network being fed by the at least one parameter, and/or
using at least one transfer function model being fed by the at least one parameter, and/or
using at least one autoregressive model being fed with at least two parameters.
Lucia discloses using inductive coils in an inductive heater to detect electrical parameters (page 5, col. 2, par. 3) wherein a neural network is used to model the electrical parameters to improve thermal performance (abstract).
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 Labordus in view of Lunden to incorporate the teachings of Lucia and use neural networks to model the temperature estimation. Doing so would have the benefit of improving thermal performance of the inductive heater (abstract, Lucia).
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labordus in view of Lunden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchida (US 20050199614 A1).
Claim 8. Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a frequency converter.
Uchida discloses an induction heating apparatus wherein multiple coils are connected to a frequency converter (par. 9).
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 Labordus in view of Lunden to incorporate the teachings of Uchida and have a frequency converter. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of designing a circuit wherein a frequency converter are connected to multiple coils.
Claim 12. Labordus in view of Lunden does not disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the inductor comprises a plurality of coils being electromagnetically coupled to each other ().
Uchida discloses an induction heating apparatus wherein there are a plurality of heating coils
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 Labordus in view of Lunden to incorporate the teachings of Uchida and a plurality of heating coils. Doing so would have the benefit of heating up a larger area.
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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights