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
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards 35 USC 112(f), the recitation of “a direct energy deposition device” is still considered by the examiner as a nonce term because there are many types of direct energy deposition devices including laser (LMD, LENS, laser cladding), electron beam, and electric arc (WAAM) devices. The applicant is reminded a 112(f) is considered an interpretation and not a rejection.
Regarding applicants’ arguments towards 35 USC 102(a)(2) in view of Brenner, the applicant argues MPEP 2131 regarding anticipation and that Brenner teaches fundamentally different DED device. The examiner respectfully disagrees because Brenner uses a laser and powder to form an object with is a form of laser DED which is known in the art to include LMD, LENS, and laser cladding.
Regarding applicants’ arguments towards 35 USC 103 over Brenner in view of Weisz, the examiner respectfully believes that the combination of Brenner and Weisz still teach the claimed limitations of claims 2 and 12.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) for claim 11 to 20 have been fully considered and are moot considering the recent amendments to the claims. Due to the amendments of 6/26/2026, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20190047088 A1 Riemann.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 11 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. The recitations of “wherein the component is a high temperature capable metallic alloy component that is susceptible to cracking during a direct energy deposition process when not preheated” are considered new matter because the applicant has not provided the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of being susceptible to cracking during a direct energy deposition process when not preheated.
Claims 2-10 and 21 are also rejected due to their dependence on one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Claim 21 is 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. The recitations of “wherein a geometry of the induction coil conforms to a geometry of the component, such that the induction coil has a substantially square geometry in response to the component having a substantially square cross-sectional geometry, and the induction coil has a substantially circular geometry in response to the component having a substantially circular cross-sectional geometry” are considered new matter because the applicant has not provided the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of an induction coil being of a particular geometry being in response to a geometry of a component.
Claim 22 is 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. The recitations of “and responsive to the temperature of the repair area falling below the desired temperature, moving the component from the direct energy deposition process back to the induction coil to reheat the repair area to the desired temperature before continuing the direct energy deposition process” are considered new matter because the applicant has not previously provided the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of reheating a component.
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 21 and 22 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The recitations of “such that the induction coil has a substantially square geometry in response to the component having a substantially square cross-sectional geometry, and the induction coil has a substantially circular geometry in response to the component having a substantially circular cross-sectional geometry” is unclear to what degree something is considered substantially square or substantially circular to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation of “wherein a geometry of the induction coil conforms to a geometry of the component, such that the induction coil has a substantially square geometry in response to the component having a substantially square cross-sectional geometry, and the induction coil has a substantially circular geometry in response to the component having a substantially circular cross-sectional geometry” is unclear because the applicant has not provided the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of an induction coil being of a particular geometry being in response to a geometry of a component. The square or round shapes and as such the shape is interpreted to be a matter of design choice and interpreted broadly because a square induction coil can heat a round component and a round induction coil can heat a square component.
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 considering 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:
“a direct energy deposition device” in claims 11 is being interpreted as item DED system 100 which are per par. 22 is a laser and a nozzle that can provide powder.
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20030121574A1 Brenner.
Regarding claim 1,
Brenner teaches,
A method for repairing a component (shaft 18) without further damaging the component (claim 1), comprising:
applying a magnetic field to the component via an induction coil (inductor part I2 8) thereby causing a temperature of the component to increase (par. 52-54, preheating cycle v1 claim 1), wherein the component is a high temperature capable metallic alloy component that is susceptible to cracking during a direct energy deposition process when not preheated (par. 42 teaches an example where shaft 18 is made of 42CrMo4 and par. 66 teaches example 2 where shaft 18 is made of St52-3 structural steel which are high temperature materials);
and responsive to the component reaching a desired temperature (par. 54 pyrometers 6 and 7 monitors the max temperature claim 1), repairing the component via the direct energy deposition process (par. 55 uses powder is introduced to process zone 17 and laser welding is applied par. par. 50-55 and claim 16 teaches build up welding after the preheat cycle, fig. 2 V1 and V2), wherein the direct energy deposition process comprises and additive manufacturing process in which a laser creates a melt pool and powder or wire feedstock is deposited into the melt pool (laser 13 is used to perform laser build-up welding, par. 17 to 19, par. 42 to 56 teach the process of laser build up welding with laser 13 via a powder delivered by powder nozzle 16).
Regarding claim 3,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the induction coil is a single coil (par. 52-54 teach the preheating cycles V1 and V2 being performed by inductor parts 11 and 8 respectively, therefore, preheat cycle V2 is performed by a single coil 8).
Regarding claim 4,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the induction coil is a set of coils (par. 52-54 teach the preheating cycles V1 and V2 being performed by inductor parts 11 and 8 respectively, therefore, preheat cycle V1 is performed by a set of coils 11, alternatively the entire preheat cycle of V1+V2 is performed by a set of coils 11 and 8).
Regarding claim 6,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein an amount of the heat applied to the component is dependent on a type of metallic alloy of the high temperature capable metallic alloy component (claim 1 teaches that the heating temperature is based upon the base material of the component “The preheating cycle V1 features a maximum temperature T1max in relation to the melting temperature TS of the base material of the component”).
Regarding claim 7,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the desired temperature is determined via a set of sensors (pyrometers 6 and 7) monitoring a temperature of the component as the component is heated via the induction coil (par. 54 pyrometer 6 monitors the max temperature claim 1).
Regarding claim 8,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein the component is moved into and out the induction coil via a motor (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program which inherently moves the shaft 18 in and out of induction coils 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 9,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 8 (as discussed above),
wherein the component is moved into and out an extruder of a direct energy deposition system via the motor (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program which inherently moves the shaft 18 in and out of induction coils 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 10,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 9 (as discussed above),
wherein the movement of the component is at least one of a rotational movement or a translational movement (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program).
Regarding claim 21,
Brenner teaches,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
wherein a geometry of the induction coil conforms to a geometry of the component, such that the induction coil has a substantially square geometry in response to the component having a substantially square cross-sectional geometry, and the induction coil has a substantially circular geometry in response to the component having a substantially circular cross-sectional geometry (fig. 4 teaches the geometry of the inductors 11 and 8 to be in a rectangular, ie. Substantially square, shape with a square cross section while fig. 1b teaches inductors 11 and 8 to be of a round shape with a square cross section as shaft 18 is round, the applicant is reminded that it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20030121574A1 Brenner in view of US 20220371086 A1 Weisz.
Regarding claim 2,
Brenner teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Brenner does not explicitly teach: wherein the induction coil is powered via an electrical current and wherein the electrical current is at least one of a direct electrical current or an alternating electrical current.
Weisz teaches the use of an inductive heater to perform metal casting for additive manufacturing (par. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of power an induction coil with one of two types of electric power, alternating current or direct current.
The results would have been predictable, since Weisz teaches wherein the induction coil (induction coil 30) is powered via an electrical current and wherein the electrical current is at least one of a direct electrical current or an alternating electrical current (par. 175 teaches the use of AC power to power induction coil 30).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions of using alternating or direct current with a reasonable expectation of success to power an induction coil.
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20030121574A1 Brenner in view of US 20190047088 A1 Riemann.
Regarding claim 11,
Brenner teaches, except where struck through,
A system, comprising:
a direct energy deposition device (CO2 laser 1, powder nozzle 16, powder conveyer 5, passive reflector 14, and laser beam formation system 15) comprising a laser and a nozzle ;
an induction coil (inductor coils 8 and 11);
a controller (CNC control 3, induction generator 2, prime mover 4);
and a tangible, non-transitory memory configured to communicate with the controller, the tangible, non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the controller, cause the controller to perform operations (par. 57 teaches movement program and that which is inherent to be stored on a non-transitory memory within CNC control 3, induction generator 2, and/or prime mover 4);
comprising:
commanding the induction coil to apply a magnetic field to a component thereby causing a temperature of the component to increase (par. 52-54 teach the preheating cycles V1 and V2 being performed by inductor parts 11 and 8 respectively, therefore, preheat cycle V2 is performed by a single coil 8), wherein the component is a high temperature capable metallic alloy component that is susceptible to cracking during a direct energy deposition process when not preheated (par. 42 teaches an example where shaft 18 is made of 42CrMo4 and par. 66 teaches example 2 where shaft 18 is made of St52-3 structural steel which are high temperature materials);
and responsive to the component reaching a desired temperature (par. 54 pyrometers 6 and 7 monitors the max temperature claim 1), commanding the direct energy deposition device to repair the component (par. 55 uses powder is introduced to process zone 17 and laser welding is applied par. par. 50-55 and claim 16 teaches build up welding after the preheat cycle, fig. 2 V1 and V2).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Brenner does not teach: comprising a laser and a nozzle co-axial with the laser, the nozzle configured to deliver powder or wire feedstock to a melt pool created by the laser.
Riemann teaches a laser metal deposition head 100 per par. 40 comprising a laser (laser axis 138) and a nozzle (nozzle assembly 140) co-axial with the laser (fig. 3), the nozzle configured to deliver powder or wire feedstock to a melt pool created by the laser (par. 26; par. 56-61 teaches fig. 3 with powder distribution channels 304 which deliver powder to form powder cone 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the locations of of laser 13 and powder nozzle 16 of Brenner to be coaxial per the teachings of Riemann to allow for less material waste and a better way to control deposition quality vs off axis powder delivery systems (Riemann par. 5 in summation).
Regarding claim 13,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 11 (as discussed above),
wherein the induction coil is a single coil (par. 52-54 teach the preheating cycles V1 and V2 being performed by inductor parts 11 and 8 respectively, therefore, preheat cycle V2 is performed by a single coil 8).
Regarding claim 14,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 11 (as discussed above),
wherein the induction coil is a set of coils (par. 52-54 teach the preheating cycles V1 and V2 being performed by inductor parts 11 and 8 respectively, therefore, preheat cycle V1 is performed by a set of coils 11, alternatively the entire preheat cycle of V1+V2 is performed by a set of coils 11 and 8).
Regarding claim 16,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 11 (as discussed above),
wherein the controller controls an amount of the heat applied to the component dependent on a type of metallic alloy of the high temperature capable metallic alloy component (par. 51 teaches that the heat applied is controlled and regulated by pyrometer 7 which is taught in fig. 1a to feed signals to CNC 3 and par. 54 pyrometer 6 monitors the max temperature claim 1 by means of CNC 3).
Regarding claim 17,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 11 (as discussed above),
wherein the system further comprises:
a set of sensors (pyrometers 6 and 7), wherein the desired temperature is determined via the set of sensors monitoring a temperature of the component as the component is heated via the induction coil (par. 54 pyrometer 6 monitors the max temperature claim 1).
Regarding claim 18,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 11 (as discussed above),
wherein the system further comprises:
a motor, wherein the motor moves the component is moved into and out of the induction coil (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program which inherently moves the shaft 18 in and out of induction coils 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 19,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 18 (as discussed above),
wherein the motor moves the component into and out an extruder of a direct energy deposition system (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program which inherently moves the shaft 18 in and out of induction coils 8 and 11).
Regarding claim 20,
Brenner as modified teaches,
The system of claim 19 (as discussed above),
wherein the movement of the component is at least one of a rotational movement or a translational movement (par. 57 teaches prime mover 4 rotating and translating shaft 18 during the buildup welding process via a movement program).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20030121574A1 Brenner in view of US 20190047088 A1 Riemann in view of US 20220371086 A1 Weisz.
Regarding claim 12,
Brenner as modified teaches, The system of claim 11 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Brenner does not explicitly teach: wherein the induction coil is powered via an electrical current and wherein the electrical current is at least one of a direct electrical current or an alternating electrical current.
Weisz teaches the use of an inductive heater to perform metal casting for additive manufacturing (par. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of power an induction coil with one of two types of electric power, alternating current or direct current.
The results would have been predictable, since Weisz teaches wherein the induction coil (induction coil 30) is powered via an electrical current and wherein the electrical current is at least one of a direct electrical current or an alternating electrical current (par. 175 teaches the use of AC power to power induction coil 30).
Therefore one of ordinary skills in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions of using alternating or direct current with a reasonable expectation of success to power an induction coil.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20030121574A1 Brenner in view of US6744005 B1 Beyer.
Regarding claim 22,
Brenner teaches, except where struck through,
The method of claim 1 (as discussed above),
further comprising: during the direct energy deposition process, monitoring a temperature of a repair area of the component via one or more sensors (pyrometers 6 and 7 and par. 54 pyrometer 6 monitors the max temperature claim 1);
.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Brenner does not teach: and is responsive to the temperature of the repair area falling below the desired temperature, moving the component from the direct energy deposition process back to the induction coil to reheat the repair area to the desired temperature before continuing the direct energy deposition process.
Beyer teaches a device 1 for producing shaped bodies or applying coatings on workpieces according to the invention is shown comprising a laser beam 2 and a plasma torch 3 (replaceable by an inductor) over a workpiece 4 (column 2 lines 5 to 10) and responsive to the temperature of the repair area falling below the desired temperature, moving the component from the direct energy deposition process back to the induction coil to reheat the repair area to the desired temperature before continuing the direct energy deposition process (column 3 lines 58 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 3 teach preheating and reheating .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention add a reheating cycle to the method of Brenner as taught by Beyer for the purpose of maintaining a particular temperature (Beyer column 3 lines 58 to 67 and column 4 lines 1 to 3).
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 replying 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 case, 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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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 Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights