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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of (US 2016/0159608A1) (hereafter Lee) in view of Peru et al. (EP-0659518A1) (hereafter Peru)
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a wire supply/bonding module (100) having a joint machine that includes a housing (110/120) including a joint passage configured to receive ends of the wires (11, 12), the joint passage (112/122) extending through opposing sidewalls of the housing (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 31-32); a jointer (fusing means 118/128) arranged in the housing and configured to join the ends of the wires to each other (figures; and paragraphs 8, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 48-49); and a cutter (first cutting surface 113, second cutting surface 123) arranged in the housing and configured to partially cut the joined ends of the wires (figures 14-18; and paragraphs 47-49) by removing a residue remaining on the joined ends of the wires after the jointer joins the ends of the wires to each other (paragraph 49, specifically the teaching of “after the surplus melt of filaments 11, 12 flows to the melt overflow channel 154, the first body 110 and the second body 120 are closed completely and contact with each other as shown in FIG. 18 and FIG. 19. At the time, the first cutting surface 113 and the second cutting surface 126 contact with each other to block the communication between the filament containing channel 152 and the melt overflow channel 154, such that the melt of the filaments 11, 12 would not flow to the melt overflow channel 154 and the filament containing channel 152 is separated from the melt overflow channel 154. As such, the overflow portion and the filament body of the bonded filament foil red by the filament fusing apparatus 100b of the present embodiment are separated from each other after moulding and curing, so the bonded filament can have a smooth outer appearance.”) Note that the filaments/wires of Lee are joined together at the point in time when the melted filaments initially contact each other.
With respect to claim 1, Lee does not teach a plurality of spools on which wires are wound; and a joint machine between the plurality of spools and configured to join the wires to each other.
However, Peru a plurality of spools (3, 9) on which wires (1a, 2a) are wound; and a joint machine (10/11) between the plurality of spools and configured to join the wires to each other (abstract; figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the spools of Peru on the wire bonding machine of Lee in order to supply long/continuous lengths of wire for bonding.
With respect to claims 7-8, Lee teaches a welding means which uses a heating unit (130) to melt and bond the wires (figures; and paragraphs 8, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 48-49).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches wherein the joint machine is configured to join the ends of the wires (11, 12) by a wire joining (figures; and paragraphs 7-10 and 31-51).
With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the cutter comprised a pair of cutters (first cutting face 113, second cutting face 123) arranged over and under an end of the wire (figures 14-18; and paragraphs 47-49).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Peru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia (CN-114789345A).
With respect to claim 4, Lee and Peru do not teach wherein the housing further comprises a suction passage configured to remove a residue generated in joining the ends of the wires.
However, Xia wherein the housing further comprises a suction passage (dust suction machine 8) configured to remove a residue generated in joining the ends of the wires (figure 2; and the machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the suction passage of Xia in the collective apparatus of Lee and Peru in order to remove and dust or debris generated by the wire bonding.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Peru as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of FR-2355605A1 (hereafter FR ‘605).
With respect to claim 9, Lee and Peru do not teach wherein the welding machine comprises an electric welding machine configured to use an electrical spark.
However, FR ‘605 teaches wherein the welding machine comprises an electric welding machine configured to use an electrical spark (Figures 5-9; and the machine translation). Note that a spark will intrinsically occur during electric resistance welding.
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the resistance welding of FR ‘605 in the collective apparatus of Lee and Peru in order to form a strong continuous wire. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (welding means) for another (welding means) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Peru as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiratori et al. (CN-102574327A) (hereafter Shiratori).
With respect to claims 10-11, Lee and Peru do not teach wherein the jointer is configured to join the ends of the wires to each other using a glue; and wherein the glue comprises an enamel resin, an epoxy bond or an acrylic bond.
However, Shiratori teaches bonding the ends of the wires to each other using a glue (figures; and machine translation); and wherein the glue comprises an enamel resin, an epoxy bond or an acrylic bond (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the adhesive bonding of Shiratori in the collective apparatus of Lee and Peru in order to form a strong adhesively bonded continuous wire. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (bonding means) for another (bonding means) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Peru as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Arikita et al. (KR-20090028573A) (hereafter Arikita).
With respect to claims 13-14, Lee and Peru do not teach wherein the wire joining comprises twisting or tying the ends of the wires; and wherein the wire joining comprises an air splicing or an air interlacing.
However, Arikita teaches a method of joining a wire/yarn by twisting or tying the ends of the wires (figures; and machine translation); and wherein the wire joining comprises an air splicing or an air interlacing (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the twisting/ splicing of Arikita in the collective apparatus of Lee and Peru in order to mechanically connect the wires for wire bonding.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon et al. (US 2,214,618) (hereafter Kenyon) in view of Lee et al. in view of (US 2016/0159608A1) (hereafter Lee).
With respect to claim 1, Kenyon teaches a wire (strip) supply module, comprising: a plurality of spools (22, 12, 14, 28) on which wires are wound (figures 1-3); and a joint machine (24) arranged-between the plurality of spools and configured to join the wires to each other, wherein the joint machine includes a housing (21) including a joint passage configured to receive ends of the wires (figures 1-3); a jointer (welding element 24) arranged in the housing and configured to join the ends of the wires to each other (figures 1-3); and a cutter (grinder 25) arranged in the housing and configured to partially cut the joined ends of the wires (page 1, column 2, line 16-page 2, column 2, line 43).
With respect to claim 1, Kenyon does not teach that the joint passage extending through opposing sidewalls of the housing.
However, Lee teaches the joint passage (112/122) extending through opposing sidewalls of the housing (figures 1-2; and paragraphs 31-32).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the sidewall/joint passage arrangement of Lee on the device of Kenyon in order to protect the wires prior to and after welding, and prevent exposure to the welding process.
With respect to claims 7-8, Kenyon teaches a welding means which uses a heating unit (welding element 24) to melt and bond the wires (figures 1-3; and page 1, column 2, line 16-page 2, column 2, line 43).
With respect to claim 9, Kenyon teaches wherein the welding machine comprises an electric welding machine (butt flash welding) configured to use an electrical spark 9page 2, column 1, lines 17-21).
With respect to claim 12, Kenyon teaches wherein the joint machine is configured to join the ends of the wires by a wire joining (welding) (figures 1-3; and page 1, column 2, line 16-page 2, column 2, line 43).
With respect to claim 15, Kenyon teaches wherein the cutter comprised a pair of cutters (grinders 25) arranged over and under an end of the wire (figures 1-3; and page 1, column 2, line 16-page 2, column 2, line 43).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xia (CN-114789345A).
With respect to claim 4, Kenyon and Lee do not teach wherein the housing further comprises a suction passage configured to remove a residue generated in joining the ends of the wires.
However, Xia wherein the housing further comprises a suction passage (dust suction machine 8) configured to remove a residue generated in joining the ends of the wires (figure 2; and the machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the suction passage of Xia in the collective apparatus of Kenyon and Lee in order to remove and dust or debris generated by the wire bonding.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiratori et al. (CN-102574327A) (hereafter Shiratori).
With respect to claims 10-11, Kenyon and Lee do not teach wherein the jointer is configured to join the ends of the wires to each other using a glue; and wherein the glue comprises an enamel resin, an epoxy bond or an acrylic bond.
However, Shiratori teaches bonding the ends of the wires to each other using a glue (figures; and machine translation); and wherein the glue comprises an enamel resin, an epoxy bond or an acrylic bond (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the adhesive bonding of Shiratori in the collective apparatus of Kenyon and Lee in order to form a strong adhesively bonded continuous wire. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (bonding means) for another (bonding means) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenyon and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Arikita et al. (KR-20090028573A) (hereafter Arikita).
With respect to claims 13-14, Kenyon and Lee do not teach wherein the wire joining comprises twisting or tying the ends of the wires; and wherein the wire joining comprises an air splicing or an air interlacing.
However, Arikita teaches a method of joining a wire/yarn by twisting or tying the ends of the wires (figures; and machine translation); and wherein the wire joining comprises an air splicing or an air interlacing (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the twisting/ splicing of Arikita in the collective apparatus of Kenyon and Lee in order to mechanically connect the wires for wire bonding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would Like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights