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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the accommodating groove A as described in the specification. Instead, fig. 2 has accommodating groove A depicted as smooth cylindrical surface, particularly one with the same diameter as the connecting pipe. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 bonding member of claim 13 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is 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: COOLED WELDING DEVICE
Claim Objections
Claims 1–14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, should be amended to recite “a laser.”
Claim 6 recites “the limit assembly,” which should be “the limiting assembly” to comport with earlier presentations of the limitation.
Claims 2–5 and 7–14 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: Although the “cooling mechanism” of claim 1 is formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), it is not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand it to be a refrigerant, a heat pump, or the like. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
The same applies to the “limiting assembly” of claim 3 (which is merely a structure), and the “bonding member” of claim 13 (which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an adhesive or the like).
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 108311802 A, cited by the Office).
Claim 1: Li discloses a welding device, comprising:
a laser welding head (1, 10, 40), provided with a channel for laser to pass through (claim 1, “through light pipe shell (1)”); and
a cooling mechanism (11), arranged on a side wall of the laser welding head (see fig. 3) and configured to cool the laser welding head;
wherein the laser welding head comprises a nozzle (40) and a connecting pipe (1, 10), and the cooling mechanism is sleeved on an outer periphery of the connecting pipe (see fig. 3).
Claim 7: Liu discloses that the connecting pipe and the nozzle are made of thermally conductive materials (broadly speaking, any material is thermally conductive (see also MPEP § 2173.04); even still, that Li discloses that its cooling pipe 11 cools the laser welding head, broadly, suggests that the laser welding head is made of material that is thermally conductive).
Claim 10: Liu discloses that the cooling mechanism comprises a cooling pipe (11) for transporting a cooling medium (abstract, “water”).
Claim 12: Liu discloses that the cooling pipe is fitted to and spirally wound around the connecting pipe (see fig. 3).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Malcosky et al. (US Pat. 3,875,759).
Claim 2: Li does not disclose all of that the connecting pipe comprises an outer wall surface and an accommodating groove formed by the outer wall surface recessed inwards, and at least part of the cooling mechanism is located in the accommodating groove.
However, within the field of heat exchange (pertinent to Applicant’s problem of improving the cooling via a cooling tube), grooves of this sort are well-known.
Malcosky teaches an accommodating groove (formed via 130) formed on an outer wall surface of an element analogous to the pipe of Liu (122) and recessed inwards (see the figure), and at least part of a similar heat exchange tube (144) is located in the accommodating groove (see the figure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the accommodating groove taught by Malcosky onto the outer wall surface of the connecting pipe of Li to improve the heat exchange between the connecting pipe and the cooling mechanism (see this improve heat exchange effect explained in col. 3, ll. 34–38).
Claim 3: Li modified by Malcosky discloses a limiting assembly (20) arranged at a side of the cooling mechanism away from the accommodating groove (appreciable from figs. 1–4).
Li does not disclose any details about the limiting assembly being connected to the connecting pipe.
However, Malcosky discloses its own analogous limiting assembly (vessel wall 120) contacting its own element analogous to the connecting pipe (122, via 134, see the figure).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt Malcosky into Li such that Li’s limiting assembly contacted its connecting pipe (via vanes forming its accommodating groove taught by Malcosky) to further confine and insulate the spaces formed by the accommodating groove to improve the heat exchange between the cooling pipe and the connecting pipe.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Malcosky as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kite et al. (US Pub. 2006/0124285).
Li does not disclose that the limiting assembly and the accommodating groove clamp the cooling mechanism.
However, like Malcosky, Kite discloses a heat exchange apparatus and provides useful teachings. Kite discloses its own element similar to a limiting assembly (8) and an accommodating groove (5A) clamping a cooling mechanism (6; ¶ 34, “The tube 6 is also provided so as to be a close fit against the housing 8, again preventing vibrations and possible unwinding”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to structure the limiting assembly and cooling mechanism of Li modified by Malcosky such that the limiting assembly clamped the cooling mechanism, as taught by Kite, to prevent vibrations and possible unwinding.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Miyazaki et al. (US Pub. 2010/0187209).
Li does not disclose either of that a thermal conductivity A of the thermally conductive material satisfies 500 W/m∙K≥A≥200 W/m∙K, or that the thermally conductive material comprises at least one of copper and aluminum.
However, Miyazaki disclose a laser head, and discloses it comprising copper (¶ 30, “copper”) with a thermal conductivity of 354 W/m∙K (¶ 31).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the connecting pipe and nozzle of Li out of the copper taught by Miyazaki for its benefit of thermal diffusivity (see ¶ 26 of Miyazaki).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 107255422 A).
Li does not disclose that the cooling pipe is one of a plurality of cooling pipes of the welding device arranged side by side in an extending direction of the connecting pipe.
However, it is already known in the art that heat exchange parts can be divided to increase the heat capacity. Wu discloses a generally-tubular heat exchanger with two heat exchange portions side-by-side in an extending direction (8, 10).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to split the heat exchange tube of Li from one into two, as broadly suggested by Wu, to increase the heat capacity of the tube.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dillon et al. (US Pat. 6,802,366).
Claim 13: Li does not disclose a bonding member sandwiched between the cooling pipe and the connecting pipe to fix the cooling pipe and the connecting pipe.
However, Dillon discloses an apparatus with pertinent heat exchange teachings, and discloses a bonding member (604, see col. 7, ll. 11–23) sandwiched between a cooling pipe (602) and a component analogous to a connecting pipe (300).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the bonding member taught by Dillon between the cooling pipe and connecting pipe of Li to improve heat transfer.
Claim 14: Modified as per claim 13 above, Dillon discloses that the bonding member comprises a thermally conductive adhesive (col. 7, l. 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires a plurality of limiting assemblies arranged at intervals along a circumferential direction of the connecting pipe. While it may have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to divide singular limiting assembly of Li into a plurality of longitudinally-extending assemblies, this would still not meet the claim because there would be no intervals (i.e. spaces) between the assemblies. In general, it would seem inadvisable to create intervals between sections of the limiting assembly as this would reduce insulation and lead to cooling energy loss to the atmosphere, though other constructions are possible under the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, while Kite discloses the specific limitations of the claim, this part of Kite’s structure is incompatible with the limitations of claim 3 requiring that the limiting assembly be connected to the connecting pipe, which is made clear when reviewing the Office’s rationale for finding claim 3 obvious in view of Malcosky.
Liu (CN 113263264 A, cited by the Office), Sun (CN 213827598 U, cited by Applicant), and Peng (CN 212311178 U, cited by Applicant) are about as relevant as Li to the overall invention claimed.
Harris (US Pat. 2,146,141), Tawney et al. (US Pat. 6,293,335), Dienhart et al. (US Pat. 6,298,687), Gordon et al. (US Pat. 4,902,476), and Nagai et al. (US Pub. 2005/0061788) offer relevant teachings on heat exchange.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761