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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 09/17/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-21 are pending:
Claims 1-14, 16-17, 19 are withdrawn
Claims 15, 18, 20-21 are examined on the merits
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III (claims 15-21) in the reply filed on 09/17/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's verbal election with traverse of Species A2 (Fig5-6) corresponding to at least claims 15-21 and Species B1 corresponding to at least claims 15-21 in the interview filed on 09/21/2026 is acknowledged The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant asserts, page 8, that the restriction of Group III relative to either of Groups I/II is incorrect as “Group III does claim ‘a thermoplastic joint,’ which is a composite part”, however applicant asserts that Groups I/II each require “a first composite part”.
The office respectfully disagrees with applicant’s conclusion. While each of Independent Claim 1/11 of Group I/II do require “a first composite part” those respective structures are claimed as separate claim element relative to the “thermoplastic joint” in the claim constructions of independent claims 1/11/15 of Groups I/II/III.
Applicant asserts, page 8, that restriction between Groups II/III is not supported due to both groups requiring a first heat sink and “a number of secondary heat sinks”.
The office respectfully disagrees. As noted on page 4 of the restriction of record, the structural difference is not the number of heat sinks, but rather the limitation that Group III requires that the “number of secondary heat sinks” has “a length the same as the unitary footprint of the (first) heat sink” (office added naming of “first” heat sink for clarity).
Applicant asserts, page 8-9, that there is not a search burden between Groups I-III as groups are “clearly related to a process and product” and therefore have overlapping search scopes in light of MPEP 904.01(c) and 904.02(a).
The office respectfully disagrees. The process Groups I/II are primarily classified under CPC B29C while the elected product group III is primarily classified under CPC H05B. These are two different CPC classes. Further, even when expanding a search for the product/process into the other respective CPC class, as stated under applicant’s cited MPEP sections, the searching considerations will be focused on either the product or process limitations/structure/steps, which is a difference in search scope.
Even if applicant’s assertions were accepted, applicant has only provided arguments against the first of the three bullet points detailing the search and/or examination burdens presented on page 5 of the restriction of record. The office notes that the three rationales of the three bullets are “or” separated where applicant must show how all three bullets are not a burden in order to overcome the restriction of record.
Applicant asserts, verbally in the interview dated 09/21/206, that there is not a search burden between the Election of Species between Species A1-A2/B1-B2, under similar basis as that detailed in writing on pages 8-9 presented in the context of the Restriction between claims. Applicant asserts that the species are “closely aligned” such that there is not a search burden.
The office respectfully disagrees. As detailed on page 6-7 of the restriction dated 09/11/2026, Species A1/A2 have different structural features between the two that would require a different search. For example, searching for a single long heat sink arranged with a long parallel length of Species A1 or searching for a bunch of little heat sinks arranged with a bunch of perpendicular lengths of Species A2. Method Species B1/B2 also different search scopes as detailed in the prior mailing.
Further, there was not argument provided against a serious examination burden as a first prior art reference for a first species would not necessarily apply to multiple/all of the rest of the species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 1-14, 16-17, 19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/17/2026 and 09/21/2026.
Claim 1-14 were withdrawn by applicant
Claim 16 is withdrawn.
Fig5, each heat sink 508 has a width (parallel to overall longitudinal direction of 536) that is greater than the width (perpendicular to longitudinal direction) of the “unitary footprint” of the joint 605 between the first/second composite parts 602/604 (best seen Fig6)
Claim 17 is withdrawn.
Fig5/6, channels 513 only shown perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the heat sinks.
Claim 19 is withdrawn.
Fig5/6, channels 513 only shown perpendicular to longitudinal axis of the heat sinks.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samalot (EP 3 772 406) in view of Collins (US 6,074,512)
Claim 15
Samalot discloses:
“A temperature control system (schematic view best seen Fig1, arrangement best seen Fig5/6) configured to weld by induction (Abstract, Title), wherein the temperature control system (citations best seen Fig5/6) comprises:
a heat sink (heat sink 690/550) formed of … that comprises:
a unitary footprint of a thermoplastic joint (Fig6, weld interface 640 between composite parts 620/630); and
…; and
a number of secondary heat sinks (best seen Fig5, plurality of heat sinks 550/690), wherein:
each secondary heat sink of the number of secondary heat sinks (Fig5/6, each heat sink 550/690) comprises a length the same as the unitary footprint of the heat sink (best seen Fig6, heat sink 550/690 has a length dimension that is the same and overlaps the weld interface 640 joint footprint); and
….”
Samalot is silent to the particular structural details of how heat sinks perform their cooling function, including material selection and/or active/passive heat sink activity. Samalot does disclose (Fig1, SpecQuote151) a cooling system 190 that uses fluid flow, which implies the potential application of at least a pump and a valve, however Samalot is silent to the scope of the “fluid control system” as claimed
SpecQuote151: “(e.g., a blower for air or a sprayer for water)”
Collins teaches:
“…
a heat sink (best seen Fig18-21, heat sink 74/1100) formed of an electrically conductive metal (C18L37-48, aluminum heat sink 74/1100) that comprises:
… and
a plurality of channels that extend from a first end of the heat sink to a second end of the heat sink (Fig18-21/22-26/4, heat sink 74/1100 has channels 74a/1110 that extend between first and second ends);
a fluid control system that comprises a number of pumps (at least Fig18-21, coolant pump), a heater (Fig18-22/4/17B, heat source 1160/1010, heater 72/77), a chiller (C18L37-48, chiller), and a number of valves (C17L57-58, gas supplies include valves); and
… and
each secondary heat sink comprises a number of channels that extend through the secondary heat sink (Fig18-21/22-26/4, heat sink 74/1100 has channels 74a/1110 that extend between first and second ends).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select the particular structural details of the heat sinks of Samalot, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Samalot, and Collins teaches that it is known in the art to select active heat sinks that have pumped coolant applied heaters to control the temperature of a heat sink in combination with inductive power (Collins: inductive antennas 44), and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Samalot with a working and known active heat sink chiller/heating fluid system as taught by Collins.
Claim 18
The modified arrangement of Samalot by the teachings of Collins discloses: “The temperature control system of claim 15, wherein the heat sink and the number of secondary heat sinks are formed of aluminum (Collins: C18L37-48, heat sink 74/1100 is made of aluminum).”
Claim 20
The modified arrangement of Samalot by the teachings of Collins discloses: “The temperature control system of claim 15, wherein the plurality of channels are perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the heat sink (Collins: best seen Fig4/26/17B, heat sink 74/1100 has channels 74a/1110 that extend along full loop of heat sink and includes two right-angle bends, therefore the channels have at least a portion that is perpendicular and/or parallel to longitudinal axis when applied to the context of Samalot).”
Claim 21
The modified arrangement of Samalot by the teachings of Collins discloses: “The temperature control system of claim 15, wherein the unitary footprint (Samalot: Fig6, width called “Weld Interface” between composite parts 620/630) is configured to cover a surface of a composite part exposed to an electromagnetic field (Samalot: Fig6, induction coil 612 magnetic field at radius 614/616 to heat weld interface 640).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 11,298,890 to Labordus: Fig3 similar welding arrangement, heat sink 17
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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 S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights