CTFR 18/466,135 CTFR 73479 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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) 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 limitations are: i . Claims 1, 10 and 21, “ welding apparatus ”, which has been interpreted as a jig configured to clamp together a base panel and a beaded panel doubler; and a welding head configured to thermally weld the base panel and the beaded panel doubler together; or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s original claim 11. This term is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 11-18 in view of the recited structure in intervening claim 11. 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are: ii . Claims 1 and 21, “ stamp forming apparatus ”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “stamp” which clearly indicates the structure of a stamp. iii . Claims 11, 14-15 and 17, “ welding head ”, which has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because a welding head, in light of the specification, would have been understood by the person of ordinary skill in the art as the name for a broad class of structures which provides welding energy. See Applicant’s published application (paragraphs 164 and 172-179) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. Claim Objections 07-29-01 Claims 1, 4-5, 7-19 and 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. Regarding claim 1, line 7, the examiner suggests --a second die comprising a plurality of die segments,-- to correct the grammar. Regarding claim 8, lines 3 and 4, the examiner suggests --first die segment ;-- in line 3 and --first die segment ,-- in line 4 to use consistent claim terminology and thereby improve claim readability. Regarding claim 19, amended parent claim 1 now includes the limitation of “wherein the beaded panel doubler comprises beads and a web that interconnects the beads, and”. Accordingly, this language should be deleted from claim 19. Regarding claim 21, as above in claim 8, the examiner suggests using --first die segment -- in the instances in line 8 and line 9. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1, 4-5, 7-19 and 21-23 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. Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15, plural webs are recited at line 12. It is unclear which is referenced by “the web” in lines 14-15. It is also unclear if “a portion” refers to a portion of each web being joined or rather a situation in which some webs are joined and some are not. The examiner suggests --at least a portion of each of the web s --. Claim 4 is dependent on canceled claim 3. The examiner suggests changing the dependency to claim 1. Regarding claim 10, as in claim 1 above, the examiner suggests --at least a portion of each of the web s --. Regarding claim 11, the base panel and beaded panel double are already recited in parent claim 1. Accordingly -- the [[a]] base panel-- and -- the [[a]] beaded panel doubler;-- should be used. As written, it is unclear if the previously recited respective terms are being referenced. Regarding claim 19, amended parent claim 1 now includes the limitation of “wherein the beaded panel doubler comprises beads and a web that interconnects the beads, and”. As noted above in the claim objections, this language should be deleted from claim 19. Here it is also noted that parent claim 1 recites plural webs and it is unclear if “a web” in claim 19 is attempting to reference of the webs from claim 1. The suggestion to delete the above noted language in claim 19 would also correct this issue. Regarding claim 21, as above in claim 1, the examiner suggests --at least a portion of each of the at least one web-- in line 16. Regarding claim 23, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the die-surface segment” of each die. The examiner suggests -- a [[the]] die-surface segment--. Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-01 AIA Claim s 1, 4-5, 7-19 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Withdrawn claim 20 should be canceled since it is not limited to the allowable subject matter detailed below. Regarding claim 1, in combination with the claimed limitations, no teaching or suggestion was found in the prior art of record to provide the combined claimed limitations of a controller configured to independently actuate the die segments according to a predetermined sequence beginning with a centrally located one of the die segments and proceeding outward in an alternating fashion to sequentially form beads and webs that interconnect the beads of the beaded panel doubler; and the claimed welding apparatus. The closest prior art was applied and discussed in the previous office action, but does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the above noted allowable subject matter. Hirabayashi (US 2020/0198185 A1) does teach actuating die segments starting with a central die segment (Figure 10), but does not recite the claimed sequence of proceeding outward in an alternating fashion. Moreover, Hirabayashi is directed to the use of thermosetting matrix resin and thus there is no clear reason to provide the claimed welding apparatus. Welding is typically performed with thermoplastic materials. Claim 21 is allowed for similar reasons as claim 1, detailed above. The sequence of claim 21 indicates starting with first die segment, then a second die segment at a first side of the first die segment, and then a third die segment at a second side of the first die segment. Claim 21 also recites the welding apparatus. In combination with the claimed limitations, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest this combination of limitations. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's 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 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm. 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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. /MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 2 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 3 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 4 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 5 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 6 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 8 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/466,135 Page 9 Art Unit: 1745
Prosecution Insights