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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 3/4/26 is acknowledged. Thus, claim 18 directed to (method invention) is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-17 as following:
Specification
The title of the invention is too long and not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --"APPARATUS FOR MAKING ELECTROMAGNETIC COILS”--.
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, the claimed of “or more actuators” (claim 13, lines 1-2) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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.
“for creating “ (claims 1-17, preamble, line 1) should be updated to : -- “for making “--, since nothing is creating by the apparatus only carrying out process as so to form the coil (see body of claim 1).
“for building the coil” (claim 1, line 2) should be: -- “for forming the electromagnetic coil”--
“the coil” (claim 1, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“the respective section” (claim 1, lines 6-7) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“and/or” (claim 1, lines 9, 10-11) should be more specific the use of: --“and” --, is suggested.
whether or not ”platform” (claim 1, line 11) as same as that in claim 1, line 2?
“the direction of the movement” (claim 2, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“ to allow for the wire” (clam 3, line 1-2) awkwardly worded should be updated to:-- to allow the wire”--.
claims 4-5 scope is unclear since the invention directed to an apparatus and claim 4 directed to the associated wire entity which is not a structural element of the claimed apparatus.
Similar to claim 4 occurrence to claims 6-9, respectively because these claims are clearly directed to an associated material (e.g., bondable overcoat and it intended use after the phrase “configured to”) is/are not parts of the claimed apparatus structural elements which made scope of claims 6-9 unclear.
No further structural elements existed in claims 10-11 and the recites” is coated” and/or “is heated” is/are not positively structure inventive features.
“the bite”(claim 15, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“any wire insulation” (claim 15, line 2) is unclear and confusing in that it is not known if this directed to “a wire” as previously cited in claim 1, line 3?
Claim 16-17 do not further limit the claimed apparatus since no further structural elements existed in the above claims. Further, following the phrase: “configured to” (see claim 16, line 1) is functionally intended use.
“the outermost coating” (claim 17, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis.
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(s) 1-17 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cohen et al (10571642).
The Cohen et al discloses the claimed apparatus for forming/making an electromagnetic coil, comprising:
platform for building the coil (see Fig. 9);
PNG
media_image1.png
499
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a dispenser (see print head) configured to dispense a wire via a nozzle (see Fig. 9);
a wire feeder (see wire feed rollers) configured to feed the wire through the dispenser (see Fig. 9);
a coating applicator configured to apply a bondable overcoat to the wire, such that when a section of the wire is laid adjacent to another section of the wire, the bondable overcoats of the respective sections bond to each other (see Figs. 2, 5a-d);
PNG
media_image2.png
241
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
one or more actuators configured to provide at least three degrees of freedom to the dispenser and/or the platform; and
a processor configured to control the one or more actuators to move the dispenser and/or platform (see Figs. 15, 24on nozzle movement) such that the wire is dispensed from the nozzle at a specified location relative to the platform (see Fig. 9 base on XYZ movement);
wherein the processor controls the one or more actuators based on a program stored in a memory, the program comprising instructions for laying the wire according to a predetermined pattern (see discussed at col. 4, lines 52-55, respectively).
The Cohen et al further discloses, regarding,
Claims 2-3 regarding, wherein the one or more actuators are further configured to rotate the dispenser relative to the platform with the direction of the movement, such that the wire maintains an optimal feed angle while being laid” which do not appear to contain any further structural elements and is/are met by the applied reference above (see Figs. 5a-b, for the elements and the functionally intended use cited thereto).
Claims 4-6, regarding, “wherein the wire comprises a conductor core and an insulation coating” which is directed to outside element do not further limit the claimed apparatus (see col. 172, lines 40-50, respectively). Further, similar to claim 4 occurrence in claims 5-6, since claims 5-6 contain no inventive features, which do not further limit the claimed apparatus.
Claim 7 regarding, “wherein the coating applicator is integrated into the dispenser” (see Figs, 2, 5 for the features as recited above).
Claim 8, “wherein the bondable overcoat comprises thermoplastic and the dispenser is further configured to heat the thermoplastic to enable bonding” (refer to discussion in col. 83, about lines 23-31 or col. 26, about lines 10-15, and Fig. 13, for the use of the materials above).
Claim 9, “wherein the bondable overcoat comprises a chemical reactive material and the dispenser is further configured to apply a chemical to the bondable overcoat to enable bonding” (see discussion in col. 53, about lines 25-31, respectively).
Claim 10 regarding “wherein the platform is coated with an adhesive layer to allow initial layers of wire to attach to the platform” not inventive structure feature. Since coating for improv e adhesion is commonly welly known, therefore not inventive when departing from the applied prior art without exercising any inventive skills.
Claim 11, “wherein the platform is heated to allow initial layers of wire to attach to the platform” is not inventive structure feature similar to that as discussed in above claim 10.
Claim 12, “wherein the platform further comprises a mandrel configured to allow the wire to be wound around the mandrel as the mandrel rotates about an axis” is met by the applied prior art (see details of Fig. 9).
Claim 13 regarding to “one or more actuators” is met by the Cohen et al since claim in alternative format.
Limitations of claims 14-15 is/are not new see Fig. 9 of the Cohen et al for the teaching of tooth wheel as feed roller/ filament feed roll and the functionally associated thereto.
Claims 16-17, “wherein the coating applicator is configured to apply one or more additional coatings to the wire” (see Fig. 110b with an additional coating). Limitation of claim 17 also satisfied by the Cohen as discussed above.
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) 13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al.
Regarding, an additional dispensers configured to lay one or more additional wires onto the platform”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include an additional dispensers configured to lay one or more additional wires onto the platform as set forth in the above claim, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device/apparatus involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Furthermore, additional dispenser use in a device for manufacture coil is merely one of several straight forward possibilities in which an ordinary skill in the art would select, depending on the circumstances, without exercising inventive skill as so to solve the problem posed, starting from the apparatus of the Cohen et al (see Fig. 9) without major modifications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights