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 .
Claim Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, elected claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Examiner also notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. In this case, conducting foils and insulated conductors of the cable are workpieces which do not limit the claimed joining apparatus.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims (1/26/26/) have been considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons.
For claim 1, Applicant argues that Lang or Sugimoto fails to describe a “joining mechanism configured to join metal of the upper conducting foil and the lower conducting foil” as required. For claim 9, Applicant similarly argues that Lang or Sugimoto fails to describe a “welding tool configured to weld metal of the upper conducting foil and the lower conducting foil” as required.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that particular type of materials of conductors/foils (i.e. conducting, insulated, metal or plastic) relates to workpieces, which do not structurally limit the apparatus. It has been held by the courts that “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). The bonding rollers shown in fig. 4 of Lang are designed to join a plurality of insulated conductors positioned between two metal conducting foil(s) as recited, without any structural modification to the apparatus.
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 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 4012577, hereafter “Lang”) in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 4455818, hereafter “Sugimoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Lang discloses a system for joining an upper conducting foil and a lower conducting foil to manufacture a multi-conductor cable 10 (fig. 1), the system comprising: a plurality of conductors 20 (copper or aluminum) supplied from fixed rollers 30 and positioned between the upper conducting film/foil 22 and the lower conducting film/foil 24 (fig. 4); and a joining mechanism 34-36 (laminating rollers) configured to join the upper conducting foil 22 and the lower conducting foil 24 with the plurality of conductors 20 (see weld areas in figs. 3, 6-7). Concerning the broad feature of ‘fixed structure’ and given the supply roll in Lang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any suitable fixed supply roll (fixed structure) for the conductors in order to feed the conductors for the purpose of manufacturing multi-conductor cable (fig. 1). The rollers shown in fig. 4 of Lang laminates metal conductor (copper or aluminum- col. 4, lines 12-15) and are well designed to join metal conducting foil(s) as recited, without any structural modification to the apparatus.
Lang is silent with respect to a linear actuator for moving the joining mechanism (rollers 34/36). However, such actuator is known in the art. Sugimoto (also directed to apparatus for joining foils for manufacturing a cable) discloses a joining mechanism 8 (welding unit 8- figs. 1-2) configured to join a plurality of conductors/foils 11 (fig. 3). Sugimoto teaches a linear actuator (motor M3- fig. 1) that moves the joining mechanism 8 (reciprocal movable welding means) with respect to the upper conducting foil 11 and the lower conducting foil 11 for continuously manufacturing a twisted cable at an accelerated speed with automated fabrication steps (col. 2, lines 45-61; col. 3, lines 16-20; col. 5, lines 44-55) Sugimoto further teaches that the drive control mechanism for the welding unit 8 may vary and may be readily designed and constructed by those skilled in the art (col. 8, lines 56-60). Reading this, artisan of ordinary skill would appreciate and understand that movement of the welding unit 8 is not limited and may be constructed to provide adequate flexibility in joining the plurality of conductors/foils. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a linear actuator to move the joining mechanism in the apparatus of Lang because doing so would provide movement flexibility in joining the plurality of conductors/foils for the purpose of continuously manufacturing a desired multi-conductor cable at an accelerated speed (Sugimoto- col. 2, lines 45-61). Thus, Lang as modified by Sugimoto includes a linear actuator that moves the joining mechanism/roller with respect to the fixed structure and plurality of conductors.
As to claim 2, Lang discloses that the joining mechanism comprises a welding tool/electrode 34/36 (fig. 4). Sugimoto also discloses that the joining mechanism comprises a welding tool 8 (fig. 1).
As to claims 4-5, the joining mechanism 34/36 in Lang is well configured to join the upper conducting foil 22, the lower conducting foil 24 between the plurality of conductors 20 (fig. 1; also note Claim Interpretation above concerning functional language and workpieces).
As to claims 6-7, Sugimoto discloses that the linear actuator (motor) moves the joining mechanism 8 between the at least one first conductor and the at least one second conductor, in a direction substantially parallel to the at least one first conductor and the at least one second conductor (fig. 1). Accordingly, Lang as modified by Sugimoto above renders the claims obvious.
Claims 9-10, 12 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US 4012577).
Regarding claim 9, Lang discloses a system for manufacturing a multi-conductor cable 10 (fig. 1) comprising a plurality of insulated conductors 20 positioned between an upper foil 22 and a lower foil 24 (fig. 4; col. 4, lines 21-30, 45-52), the system comprising: the upper foil 22 wrapped at least partially around a first roller 40; the lower foil 24 wrapped at least partially around a second roller 38 (fig. 4); the plurality of insulated conductors 20 positioned between the upper conducting foil and the lower conducting foil (figs. 1, 3); at least one welding tool 34/36 (rollers) that joins the upper foil and the lower foil in a region (nip areas) between the insulated conductors 20 (figs. 1, 3; col. 3, lines 38-45) and a plurality of rollers 30, 38, 40 that position the upper foil, the lower foil, and the plurality of insulated conductors relative to the welding tool, the plurality of rollers including the first & second rollers 38/40 (fig. 4; col. 4, line 53 thru col. 5, line 10). The rollers shown in fig. 4 of Lang laminates metal conductor (copper or aluminum- col. 4, lines 12-15) and are well designed to join metal conducting foil(s) as recited, without any structural modification to the apparatus.
Lang merely differs from the claim with respect to the cable workpiece comprising particular types of conductors/foils (i.e. metal conducting foils, insulated conductors), which workpieces do not limit the apparatus (see Claim Interpretation above). A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize and understand that any material of plurality of conductors/foils can be positioned on the supply rolls in Lang to form a particular type of multi-conductor cable with desired control of electrical characteristics such as capacitance, impedance and signal transmission (col. 1, lines 42-55). This encompasses a cable comprising a plurality of insulated conductors positioned between two metal conducting foil(s). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to join a plurality of insulated conductors positioned between metal of the upper conducting foil and lower conducting foil using the same apparatus of Lang for the purpose of manufacturing a desired multi-conductor cable (fig. 4; col. 1, lines 42-55).
As to claim 10, Lang discloses a welding roller 34/36 for joining the conductors under heat & pressure and thus, it is equivalent to an electrode. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable welding electrode for effecting bonding of the conductors/foils.
As to claim 12, Lang discloses the first roller 40, which is configured to tension the upper foil, and the second roller 38, which is configured to tension the lower foil by adjusting roller rotation.
As to claim 18, Lang shows that the plurality of rollers comprises: one or more rollers 30 configured to position the insulated conductors 20 (fig. 4).
As to claim 19, the plurality of rollers in Lang are further configured to tension the upper foil, the lower foil or insulated conductors by adjusting roller rotation (fig. 4). The term “and/or” is taken to mean “or” under broadest reasonable interpretation.
As to claim 20, examiner notes that type of conductors concerns workpiece materials, which do not structurally limit the joining apparatus. The joining apparatus of Lang (fig. 4) is well designed to bond insulated conductors comprising at least one first insulated conductor and at least one second insulated conductor.
As to claim 21, Lang shows a joining roller electrode 34/36 (fig. 4).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang as applied to claim 9 and in view of Takagi et al. (US 5387298, hereafter “Takagi”).
As to claims 14-16, Lang fails to disclose a plurality of guides for aligning the conductors, however, such mechanism is known in the art. Takagi (also drawn to apparatus and method for bonding conductors/sheets for manufacturing a cable) discloses a plurality of rollers for supplying & guiding the conductors/sheets and movable joining tools 6/13 (hot rolls) configured to join the plurality of conductors/sheets 2/5/6 (fig. 4). Takagi teaches the apparatus comprising a plurality of guides 9-10 (dancer & transfer rolls) configured to align the plurality of insulated conductors with respect to one another, wherein aligning the plurality of insulated conductors with respect to one another comprises maintaining a distance between the insulated conductors of the plurality of insulated conductors, wherein the guide rolls are configured to control a tension in the plurality of insulated conductors (fig. 4; col. 5, lines 55-65). Examiner notes any distance meets this claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide guide rolls similar to Takagi in the apparatus of Lang in order to regulate a distance between the insulated conductors as well as to control a tension in the plurality of insulated conductors to ensure proper feeding for joining.
As to claim 17, Takagi discloses the apparatus comprising a heating element 13 (hot rolls) that is capable to anneal at least a portion of the cable 14 (fig. 4). Examiner notes that heating to anneal is a functional feature and annealing conditions would depend on factors such as cable materials and environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate heating roll for annealing the cable in the apparatus of Lang with the motivation to improve certain properties such as increasing ductility of the cable and relieve internal stresses.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang as applied to claim 9 and in view of Takagi et al. (US 5387298) & Emmel (US 3938931).
As to claim 22, Lang does not disclose a plurality of pairs of welding tools. However, Takagi does show that at least one welding tool comprises a plurality of pairs of welding tools (6 & 13) including an upper welding tool and a lower welding tool, wherein foils/sheets are positioned between the upper welding tool and the lower welding tool (fig. 4). Similarly, Emmel (also drawn to apparatus for bonding plurality of conductors to produce a cable- abstract) teaches that apparatus comprises a plurality of pairs of welding tools, each pair including upper & lower rollers 44-50 (with heat control) to ensure a reliable bonded and permanently formed cable bonded in a two-step operation (figs. 1, 2; col. 5, line 57 thru col. 6, line 10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide at least two pairs of welding rollers in the apparatus of Lang with the motivation to ensure reliable bonding and permanently formed cable, as suggested by Emmel. Thus, combination of Lang, Takagi & Emmel discloses the apparatus comprising a plurality of pairs of welding tools, wherein each pair includes an upper welding roller and a lower welding roller, wherein conductors & foils are positioned between the upper and the lower welding rollers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735