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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are examined in this office action as claim 14 is canceled and claims 1-4, 6-11, 15-18, and 20 were amended in the reply dated 6/23/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-13 and 15-20 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 have all been amended to recite the limitation “operating predetermined combinations of the multiple induction heating coils under variable power control to generate non-uniform, spatially resolved induction heating patterns across the blank that selectively tailor surface and through-thickness properties prior to forming”. These claims have also been amended to recite where “spatially distinct heating through the blank thickness to vary material properties throughout a modified blank thickness”. Applicant points to paragraphs [0009], [0015], [0020], [0022], and [0035] of the specification as support for this amendment. While paragraph [0035] recites use of “the variable power supply 34 with the variable frequency device 36, varying and localized current intensities may be generated within the heating unit 14 and across the blank 12 by energizing or varying a power supplied to predetermined ones of the multiple induction heating coils 32” and paragraph [0020] notes that this varying of energy into the induction heating coils varies the material properties throughout the blank’s thickness, this does not recite where non-uniform, spatially resolved heating patters through the blank thickness is generated nor where spatially distinct heating is generated through the blank thickness There is no recitation of “spatially resolved” or “spatially distinct” anywhere in the specification and the mere varying of properties does not provide support for where heating patterns are spatially resolved or distinct. Claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are also rejected as they depend from claims 1, 11, and 18 and do not solve the above issue.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 all recite the limitations “spatially resolved induction heating patterns” and “spatially distinct heating through the blank thickness” in each of the claims. It is not clear what is meant by “spatially resolved” nor how an induction heating pattern is spatially resolved. Also, it is not clear how heating can be spatially distinct through a thickness of a blank. Claims 2-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are also rejected as they depend from claims 1, 11, and 18 and do not solve the above issue.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “localized heating”. The term “localized” in claim3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “localized” 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. It is not clear from the specification what differentiates “localized” heating and current intensities from heating and current intensities in general.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the localized heating" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While claim 2 from which claim 3 depends originally recited “a localized heating”, this limitation has been removed from that claim and therefore claim 3 no longer has antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “about” in conjunction with “greater than or equal to” and “less than or equal to”. Thus applicant is using a term of approximation which would require some amount beyond the claimed range to have any meaning with language that creates a hard cutoff on the range. Thus, it is not clear what the scope of these ranges is.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections, applicant’s amendments have cured most issues. However, a single recitation of “localized heating” remains in claim 3 which also no longer has antecedent basis must be addressed. Also, the use of “about” in claim 10 in conjunction with the phrases “greater than or equal to” and “less than or equal to” remains unclear. Also, see new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above concerning “spatially resolved” and “spatially distinct”.
With respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of the claims, it is agreed that Chauvin does not teach “operating a multi-axis transfer device to manipulate the blank within the heating unit during material property modification of the blank into a modified blank” (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 1, last paragraph). Further, while Ulrich teaches using variable frequencies and Overrath teaches using a multi-axis robot arm, it is agreed that neither of these references teaches where the blank is manipulated within the heating unit using this multi-axis transfer device during the material property modification of the blank (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 3, 1st paragraph).
Conclusion
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 Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights