DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "the actual welding region" in line 7. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, claim 1 recites that the heating device “can be positioned” and “can be actuated,” and that the strip end “can subsequently be trimmed." Claim 14 contains similar language. This language is functional and states a mere intended use or capability without positively reciting the structural features (e.g., actuators, guides, or controllers) that configured the apparatus to perform these functions. Therefore, these claim limitations are deemed indefinite for not properly defining the metes and bounds of the claims. See further MPEP 2114. To overcome this rejection, the limitations should be amended to “is configured to be” or “is” to positively claim the structural capability.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the claims recite the limitation “the cutting area.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Based on independent claims 1 and 14, upon which claims 2 and 15 depend, it appears that the claims should instead recite “the cutting region” for proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the outgoing strip end (16’)” and “the incoming strip end (16).” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only introduces generic “strip ends (18).”
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “or similar heat source.” The word “similar” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks objective boundaries. See further MPEP 2173. It is entirely unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what alternative heat sources would fall within the scope of “similar.”
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “preferably transversely to the direction of movement.” The use of “preferably” makes the limitation optional, blurring the exact scope of the claim. See further MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 9, 11, and 12, the claims recite the limitation “beam-like induction coil (24).” “Beam-like” is a term of degree that lacks an objective boundary. While the specification uses the term, neither the claims nor the specification provide an objective standard for determining when a coil transitions from being non-beam-like to “beam-like” (e.g., a specific length-to-width ratio). Therefore, the claims are deemed indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the clamping and positioning device (6),” “the upper clamping jaw (17),” and “the lower clamping jaw (5).” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the movable laser welding device (10).” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim 1 introduces “the laser welding device (10),” without recitation of the laser welding device being movable.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the actual welding region” and “the cutting edges of the strip ends.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “the laser welding means.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim 14, upon which claim 15 depends, recites “laser welding devices (10).”
Regarding claims 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, and 16-18, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claims identified above.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections are overcome, claims 1-18 would be 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Wheeler (US 3,378,185) teaches a method and apparatus for joining strip and sheet material including a main frame (#2), a pair of combination shear and weld clamp assemblies (#3/#4), and a weld head assembly (#6). However, Wheeler does not specifically teach at least one heating device provided on the laser welding device for heating the actual welding region which can be positioned relative to at least one of the cutting regions of the strip ends to be joined before trimming and can be actuated in such a way that the cutting region is heated and at least one strip end can subsequently be trimmed in the heated state, as required in claims 1 and 14.
Wheeler (DE 1499045 A) teaches a device (#1) for trimming and welding strip ends (#110) for use on laser welding devices in which strip ends (#110) to be joined are positioned apart from each other and are trimmed parallel to each other before welding by means of a mechanical cutting device (#5, #45). However, Wheeler does not specifically teach wherein at least one heating device provided on the laser welding device for heating the actual welding region which can be positioned relative to at least one of the cutting regions of the strip ends to be joined before trimming and can be actuated in such a way that the cutting region is heated and at least one strip end can subsequently be trimmed in the heated state, as required in claims 1 and 14.
Li (US 2020/0246917 A1), Schmit (US 2020/0016697 A1), Diez (US 2010/0078412 A1), Wang (US 2006/0261045 A1), Mombo-Caristan (US 5,595,670), Berlinger (US 4,684,779) all teach relevant aspects of devices for utilizing laser welding to connect plates and strips. However, none of these prior arts specifically cure the deficiencies identified above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights