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 04/10/2023 and 04/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “258” has been used to designate both “top surface” and “second surface” of “the rail” in para. 0113 and Fig. 6.
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. 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:
- "42" should reads "46" in para. 0107, l.6, in order to be consistent with the drawings.
- Reference character “42” has been used to designate both one of “the blocks” (para. 0107) and “a first clamp cover” in para. 0101.
- “Fig. 5B” in para. 0115 should read “Fig. 5C”, as reference character “302” has been shown in Fig. 5C to designate the “axis” in para. 0115, but not shown in Fig. 5B.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 14-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (WO-9205945) in view of Spencer (US-4610670).
Regarding claim 1, Knorr discloses a tube welder (Abstract) comprising:
a clamp block (mounting clamp, 26 in fig.3) configured to receive a tube (tube, 28 or 30 in fig.3);
a carriage (base, 22 in fig.3 and fig.6) movable along a first axis (see fig.3 and fig.6 annotated) (carriage is movable along a first axis relative to reference 44), and
a spring (spring, 62 in fig.3 and fig.6) biasing the clamp block in a first direction (see fig.3 and fig.6 annotated) along the second axis (see fig.3 and fig.6 annotated).
Knorr does not expressly disclose a slide rail coupling the clamp block to the carriage such that the clamp block is configured to move along a second axis. Knorr discloses an opening (58, in fig.3) coupled the clamp block to the carriage such that the clamp block is configured to move along a second axis (see fig.3 and fig.6 annotated), where the opening functions guiding the translation of linkage (56, in fig.3 and fig.6) along the second axis.
However, Spencer discloses a slide rail (guides 45, 46, fig.5) coupling the clamp block (51) through guiding the translation of a linkage (9) such that the clamp block (51) is configured to move along the axis of slide rail (see fig.5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a slide rail coupling the clamp block to the carriage such that the clamp block is configured to move along a second axis, through replacing the opening of Knorr in the carriage to the slide rail of Spencer installed on the carriage. This is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, since both the opening and the slide rail guide the linkage to move along the second axis. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Knorr does not expressly disclose a linkage configured to move the clamp block in the first direction and in a second direction along the second axis, opposite the first direction. Knorr discloses a linkage (slidable block 56, see fig.3 and fig.6) configured to be returned by the spring moving the clamp block in the first direction along the second axis (see fig.3 and fig.6 annotated).
However, Spencer discloses a linkage (cam cylinder 72 with groove 80 that is rotated by motor 74, col.11, ll. 16-17 and ll.29-30, and fig.11) configured to move the clamp block in the first direction and in a second direction along the second axis, opposite the first direction (col.11, ll.11-30; also see fig.11 annotated). The linkage of Spencer provides an active drive in both directions along the second axis, which improves the reliability of translation of the clamp block, compared to the linkage of Knorr that makes the clamp block translate in the first direction along the second axis and the translation relies on the spring return.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a linkage configured to move the clamp block in the first direction and in a second direction along the second axis, opposite the first direction, by replacing the spring-return linkage of Knorr to the two-way mechanical linkage of Spencer. It is a predictable variation to replace the spring-return linkage of Knorr to the two-way mechanical linkage of Spencer to ensure reliability of the clamp block translation in two directions. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) on applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
581
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Knorr, annotated Fig. 6 of Knorr, annotated
PNG
media_image3.png
358
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Spencer
PNG
media_image4.png
484
812
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 of Spencer, annotated
Regarding claim 2, Spencer discloses wherein
the linkage includes a first protrusion (in the first wall of the groove 80, see fig.11 annotated) and a second protrusion (in the second wall of the groove 80, see fig.11 annotated); and
the clamp block includes a post (follower 67, fig. 11) configured to be at least partially received between the first protrusion and the second protrusion (see fig.11 annotated).
Regarding claim 3, Spencer discloses wherein the clamp block translates in the first direction along the second axis when the first protrusion abuts the post (see fig.11 of Spencer, annotated).
Regarding claim 4, Spencer discloses wherein the clamp block translates in the second direction along the second axis when the second protrusion abuts the post (see fig.11 of Spencer, annotated).
Regarding claim 5, Knorr and Spencer both disclose wherein the second axis is orthogonal to the first axis (see fig.3 and fig.6 of Knorr, annotated; fig.11 of Spencer, annotated).
Regarding claim 14, Knorr discloses further including a rail (surface of cam follower 64m, which functions a guiding rail when carriage 22 translates relative to 44 along the first axis.) positioned with a non-planar surface (see fig. 6, annotated) facing the clamp block (26).
Regarding claim 15, Knorr discloses wherein the rail extends along a center axis (see fig. 6, annotated) that is parallel to the first axis (The longitudinal path of the guiding rail runs along the center axis parallel to the first axis, i.e. the direction the carriage travels.).
Regarding claim 16, Knorr discloses wherein a distance between the clamp block and the center axis of the rail varies as the clamp block translates along the first axis (Translation of carriage 22 relative to 44 along the first axis leads to the translation of the clamp block 26 along the first axis. As the clamp block 26 moves forward along the first axis, it reaches a point where it is forced to shift laterally to align the tubes, therefore the distance between the clamp block 26 and the center axis of the rail varies, see fig. 6, annotated).
Regarding claim 17, Knorr discloses, wherein a heating assembly (heated wafer 36, which is attached on pivotable wafer arm 34) is coupled to the rail (Heating and connecting the tubes is achieved by coupling heated wafer with the rail that represents the movement of the cam follower 64 guiding the alignment of the tubes, see p. 17, ll. 19-38; p. 21, ll. 20-34.).
Regarding claim 20, Knorr discloses the clamp block is a first clamp block, and the tube welder further includes a second clamp block (mounting clamp 24 in fig.3 annotated) coupled to the carriage by an opening (46 in fig.3 annotated) to permit relative movement between the carriage (22 in fig.3 annotated) and the second clamp block (24 in fig.3 annotated).
Knorr does not expressly disclose the tube welder further includes a second clamp block coupled to the carriage by a slide rail to permit relative movement between the carriage and the second clamp block.
However, Spencer discloses a slide rail (guides 45, 46, fig.5) coupling the clamp block (51) such that the clamp block (51) is configured to move along the axis of slide rail (see fig.5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the tube welder further includes a second clamp block coupled to the carriage by a slide rail to permit relative movement between the carriage and the second clamp block, by replacing the opening of Knorr in the carriage to the slide rail of Spencer installed on the carriage. This is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, since both the opening and the slide rail guide the linkage to move along the second axis. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claims 6-8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (WO-9205945) and Spencer (US-4610670) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaposka et al. (US-4793880).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of the teachings by Knorr and Spencer does not expressly disclose wherein the linkage includes: a transmission coupled to the motor; a first bar member coupled to the transmission; and a second bar member coupled to the first bar member at a pivot, although Spencer discloses wherein the linkage includes a motor (74, col. 10, l. 68 – col. 11, l. 1).
However, Shaposka discloses wherein the linkage includes:
a motor (42, col. 5, l. 10, figs.16 and 17);
a transmission (lead screw 44, col. 5, l. 11, figs.16 and 17, which engage an internally threaded bore 52 in carriage 46 in fig.18 to control the forward and rearward movement of carriage 46) coupled to the motor;
a first bar member (carriage 46 in fig. 18) coupled to the transmission; and
a second bar member (arm 12, col.5, ll. 23-25, see fig.18 annotated) coupled to the first bar member at a pivot (pivot rod 36 in fig.17, col.5, ll. 23-25).
The linkage of Shaposka with two bar members and a motorized lead screw drive provides an automated control with higher precision and repeatability compared to the linkage of Spencer with a manual mechanical cam drive [col.1, ll.49-52; col.1, ll.61-62].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the linkage includes: a motor; a transmission coupled to the motor; a first bar member coupled to the transmission; and a second bar member coupled to the first bar member at a pivot, by replacing the linkage of Spencer with a manual mechanical cam drive to the linkage of Shaposka with two bar members and a motorized lead screw drive. The replacement of linkage realizes a transition from a manual alignment to an automated precision alignment leading to reduced human error during the welding cycle [col.1, ll.61-62]. This is use of known technique to similar devices in the same way for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I (D).
Regarding claim 7, Shaposka discloses
wherein the second bar member (arm 12) includes a protrusion (cam follower 30 in fig.19) (Cam follower 30 is secured to arm 12 by an eccentrically mounted screw 118, col.6, ll. 38-40.);
wherein the protrusion (30) is configured to engage the clamp block (tube holder 106 in fig. 17, col.6, ll.36-38) (Tube holder 106 includes a hole extending completely through one of its tube holding pockets for access to cam follower 30, col.6, ll.35-37. The feature of permitting access through the tube holder allows adjustment of the position of cam follower 30 to assure proper contact with cam track 32 formed in the surface of base 40 in fig. 19, col.6, ll.40-43, where tube holder 106 is slidably mounted on a slide strip 116 which is disposed in a groove in respective arm 12 beneath T-tracks 80, col.6, ll.15-19, see figs.1-8 and fig.18.).
PNG
media_image5.png
342
716
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
335
343
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 16 of Shaposka Fig. 18 of Shaposka, annotated
PNG
media_image7.png
374
378
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
422
706
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 17 of Shaposka Fig. 19 of Shaposka
PNG
media_image9.png
518
1398
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-8 of Shaposka
Regarding claim 8, The combination of the teachings by Knorr and Spencer does not expressly disclose further including a sensor configured to detect the position of the linkage.
However, Shaposka discloses a sensor (an emitter and diode assembly, col. 7, ll.3) configured to detect the position of the linkage (Lead screw 44 terminates in a shaft portion 124 which includes a slot 126. A sensor is disposed for sensing the rotation of shaft 124 by counting the number of revolutions of the shaft in accordance with the movement of slot 126. See col. 7, ll.3-12). Shaposka teaches that the counted number of revolutions of the shaft, i.e. the detected position of the linkage, can be sent to a micro-processor for controlling the direction of movements of motor in accordance with predetermined counts [col. 7, ll.3-12].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a sensor configured to detect the position of the linkage, in order to automatically control the direction of movements of motor in accordance with predetermined processing as taught by Shaposka.
Regarding claim 10, Shaposka discloses wherein the sensor detects the position of the transmission (lead screw 44) (The sensor counts the number of revolutions of the shaft, which is directly related to the position of the lead screw 44, col. 7, ll.3-12).
Regarding claim 11, Shaposka discloses wherein the transmission transfers rotational motion from the motor (42) to linear translation of the first bar member (46) (Motor 42 with lead screw 44 drives the first bar member 46 that rests on base 40, and an internally threaded bore 52 in the first bar member 46 is engaged by lead screw 44 to control the translational forward and rearward movement of the first bar member 46, col. 5, ll. 10-22, figs. 16-18.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (WO-9205945), Spencer (US-4610670) and Shaposka et al. (US-4793880) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ivansons et al. (US-5279685).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of the teachings by Knorr, Spencer and Shaposka does not expressly disclose wherein the sensor detects the position of the second bar member (arm 12, which is coupled to the carriage at a pivot rod 36, see fig.17 of Shaposka and fig 18 of Shaposka, annotated).
However, Ivansons discloses the sensor detecting positions of clamp (which corresponds to the arm 12 in fig 18 of Shaposka, i.e. the second bar member). In the disclosure of Ivansons, positions of the clamp are detected by the sensors as shown in fig.18 and fig.20 of Ivansons, where clamp fastener 72 carries a sensor flag 78 that is disposed for movement into and out of a beam from the sensor 80 [col.4, l.66 – col.5, l.23]. Ivansons teaches that the sensing means assures the clamp to be in its correct position [col. 4, l. 63 – 66].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the sensor detects the position of the second bar member, in order to assure the second bar member being in its correct position as taught by Ivansons.
PNG
media_image10.png
430
612
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 of Ivansons
PNG
media_image11.png
432
754
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 20 of Ivansons
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (WO-9205945) and Spencer (US-4610670) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ivansons et al. (US-5279685).
Regarding claim 12, Knorr discloses further including a release assembly (restoring force handle, 68 in fig.6) coupled to the linkage (56), wherein the release force handle is manually actuated to relieve the pressure of spring 62 through slidable block 56 to cam follower 64 and cam 66 [p.16, ll.13-17].
The combination of the teachings by Knorr and Spencer does not expressly disclose wherein the release assembly moves in response to a force acting on the linkage exceeding a threshold force.
However, Ivansons discloses a release assembly (spring arm 70 in fig.20) coupled to the linkage (pin 74 in fig.20), wherein the release assembly moves in response to a force (pressing force, col.5, l.13, fig. 20) acting on the linkage (74) exceeding a threshold force (the physical limit that is set by the spring tension of the spring biasing the arm in 70) (When the clamp is in its closed position, the tube contact pad 82 would be pressed against tube 66 and would also press against pin 74 to move pin 74 downwardly with its flange 76 moved away from the shoulder 84 in base clamp 52, see col.5, ll.12-16). Ivansons teaches that such a release assembly can make the clamp to be closed at a position with suitable force making tube held in its proper squashed condition [col.5, ll.18-20], which means that the release assembly automatically prevents the device from the condition with extra force being acted on the clamp blocks, indicating that the release assembly achieves an automatic safety control.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a release assembly coupled to the linkage wherein the release assembly moves in response to a force acting on the linkage exceeding a threshold force, through replacing the manual release assembly of Knorr to the automatic one of Ivansons, in order to achieve an automatic safety control as taught by Ivansons.
Regarding claim 13, Ivansons discloses wherein the release assembly includes
a carrier (arm 70 in fig.20) coupled to the linkage (pin 74 in fig.20) and
a spring biasing the carrier (arm 70 is spring biased, col. 4, ll. 67-68).
Claims 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knorr et al. (WO-9205945) and Spencer (US-4610670) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Unvala al. (Radiant heating using an ellipsoidal reflector, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. vol7(5), 349, 1974.).
PNG
media_image12.png
442
815
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Unvala, annotated
Regarding claim 18, The combination of the teachings by Knorr and Spencer does not expressly disclose wherein the heating assembly includes a core with a longitudinal axis, a winding positioned around the core, a first reflector including a first surface; and a second reflector including a second surface.
However, Unvala discloses wherein the heating assembly (tungsten-halogen lamp positioned at one focus of a suitably shaped ellipsoidal reflector, see Abstract) includes
a core with a longitudinal axis (shown in fig. 1 and fig.2, the tungsten-halogen lamp has a filament structure featuring a core with a longitudinal axis),
a winding positioned around the core (shown in fig.1 and fig.2, the tungsten-halogen lamp has a coiled winding around the core),
a first reflector (top half elliptical reflector, see fig.1 annotated) including a first surface (surface of the top half elliptical reflector); and
a second reflector (bottom half elliptical reflector, see fig.1 annotated) including a second surface (surface of the bottom half elliptical reflector).
Moreover, Unvala teaches using the tungsten-halogen lamp positioned at one focus of a suitably shaped ellipsoidal reflector to heat small objects placed at the other focus allows greater flexibility in temperature control [Abstract].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the heating assembly includes a core with a longitudinal axis, a winding positioned around the core, a first reflector including a first surface; and a second reflector including a second surface, in order to obtain greater flexibility in temperature control as taught by Unvala.
Regarding claim 19, Unvala discloses wherein the core is positioned between the first surface of first reflector and the second surface of the second reflector (see Fig. 1 of Unvala, annotated).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zunjing J. Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-0762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/ Zunjing J. Wang /Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761