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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1-13 under 35 USC 103 in view of Reiner (DE10000347A1 with references to the machine English translation cited in IDS) and Gerhard (PGPub 2003/0062118 cited in IDS)have been fully considered and are persuasive as the combination of Reiner and Gerhard fails to teach or suggest both vertical and lateral displacement of the guides. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Reiner (DE10000347A1 with references to the machine English translation cited in IDS) in view of Gerhard (PGPub 2003/0062118 cited in IDS) and Dichiara et al (EP3785885 cited in IDS).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Line 13, “a height of each pair of guide (10, 14, 140, 14’)” should read “a height of each pair of guides (10, 14; 10’, 14’)” (“guides” should be plural and the reference numerals should refer to the correct elements and match other recitations of the same elements)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (DE10000347A1 with references to the machine English translation cited in IDS) in view of Gerhard (PGPub 2003/0062118 cited in IDS) and Dichiara et al (EP3785885 cited in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, Reiner teaches an installation for welding a stack of parts made of thermoplastic composite materials in a local welding plane (Figs. 1 and 2; [0010]), the installation comprising:
an electromagnetic induction head (Figs. 1 and 2- induction heating heat 2; [0014]) and,
at least one pair of guides (Figs. 1 and 2- pair of rollers 3),
wherein each pair of guides comprises: a lower guide (Figs. 1 and 2- lower roller 3) and an upper guide (Figs. 1 and 2- upper roller 3) wherein the lower guide and the upper guide are superposed and are able to receive between them the stack of parts by guiding it in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane (Figs. 1 and 2).
Reiner further teaches the distance between the induction coil (and the rollers) and the top of the component is measured via a distance sensor and regulated with the help of a pneumatic cylinder (Fig. 1- showing motion of pneumatic cylinder 12 (rollers 3 are necessarily moved similarly with the motion of pneumatic cylinder 12); [0013]) but does not specify at least one pair of guides located on each side of said induction head, a height of each pair of guides is adjusted in real time with respect to the local welding plane as the stack passes during the welding; wherein at least one guide pair has a device for displacing the lower guide or upper guide with respect to the other in the direction of the local welding plane and a system for regulating said displacement device according to the curvature of the stack so as to ensure perpendicularity of the pressure with respect to the surfaces.
Gerhard teaches an alternative welding installation (Abstract) wherein a pair of guides (rollers) are provided on each side of the induction head (Fig. 2- front drive rolls 206A and rear drive rolls 206B on either side of induction apparatus 234) in order to tension the material between rollers [0061].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Reiner to include at least one pair of guides on each side of said induction head as taught by Gerhard with reasonable expectation of success to tension the material between rollers [0061].
Gerhard further teaches a height of each pair of guides is adjusted in real time with respect to the local welding plane as the stack passes during the welding ([0053]- adjustable rollers) to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include adjustable rollers as taught by Gerhard with reasonable expectation of success to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
Gerhard also does not teach at least one guide pair has a device for displacing the lower guide or upper guide with respect to the other in the direction of the local welding plane and a system for regulating said displacement device according to the curvature of the stack so as to ensure perpendicularity of the pressure with respect to the surfaces.
Dichiara teaches an alternative welding installation [0001] wherein the rollers (guide pair) are hinged to allow for horizontal displacement (Figs. 1, 6- roller 28A and 28B; [0016]) to maintain consolidating pressure while moving over a contoured surface [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include hinged rollers as taught by Dichiara with reasonable expectation of success to maintain consolidating pressure while moving over a contoured surface [0016] thus meeting the instant limitation of at least one guide pair has a device for displacing the lower guide or upper guide with respect to the other in the direction of the local welding plane and a system for regulating said displacement device according to the curvature of the stack so as to ensure perpendicularity of the pressure with respect to the surfaces.
Regarding Claim 2, Reiner further teaches each lower guide and upper guide of the guide pairs are able to move in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane (Fig. 1- showing motion of pneumatic cylinder 12 (rollers 3 are necessarily moved similarly with the motion of pneumatic cylinder 12); [0013]- the distance between the induction coil and the top of the component is measured via a distance sensor and regulated with the help of a pneumatic cylinder).
Gerhard also teaches utilizing adjustable rollers [0053] to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include adjustable rollers as taught by Gerhard with reasonable expectation of success to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
Regarding Claim 3, Reiner further teaches at least one of the lower guide or the upper guide includes a system for regulating the displacement of movement in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane (Fig. 1- showing motion of pneumatic cylinder 12 (rollers 3 are necessarily moved similarly with the motion of pneumatic cylinder 12); [0013]- the distance between the induction coil and the top of the component is measured via a distance sensor and regulated with the help of a pneumatic cylinder).
Gerhard also teaches utilizing adjustable rollers [0053] to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
Regarding Claim 4, Reiner further teaches the at least one guide pair has a system for regulating the pressure exerted on the stack between the lower guide and the upper guide ([0013]- welding pressure is applied; Fig. 1- showing movement of pneumatic cylinder 12).
Gerhard also teaches utilizing adjustable rollers [0053] to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include adjustable rollers as taught by Gerhard with reasonable expectation of success to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to prevent the growth of voids and achieve the desired mechanical structure [0053].
Regarding Claim 5, Reiner further teaches each one of the lower guide and the upper guide has a rolling device for rolling against the stack have axes parallel to the local welding plane (Fig. 1- rollers 3 with axes parallel to the welding plane)
Gerhart also teaches each of the guides are rollers with axes parallel to the local welding plane (Fig. 2- front drive rolls 206A and rear drive rolls 206B, rolls 252).
Regarding Claim 7, Reiner further teaches the induction head has a vertical head positioning device ([0013]- the distance between the induction coil and the top of the component is measured via a distance sensor and regulated with the help of a pneumatic cylinder)
Regarding Claim 8, Reiner further teaches a support connected to a fixed structure by the vertical head positioning device which also supports the upper guides of the guide pairs (Fig. 1- C-frame 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Gerhart further teaches a drive system which may include a conveyor system [0032] to desirably convey the composite through the laminator [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include a conveyor system as taught by Gerhard with reasonable expectation of success to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to desirably convey the composite through the laminator [0032] thus meeting the instant limitation of a mobile holding and positioning frame for the stack of parts, displacing the zone to be welded of this stack under the induction head
Regarding Claim 10, Gerhard further teaches heating (Fig. 1- surface heaters 222) or cooling (Fig. 1- cooling apparatus 262) air jets [0039]; [0054]-[0055]; [0066] disposed between the lower guide of the guide paiss (See Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Reiner further teaches a measuring device for measuring the welding zone that is disposed between the lower guide of the guide pairs (Fig. 1- distance sensor 6; [0013]).
Regarding Claim 12, Reiner further teaches the measuring device is chosen from a visual or thermal camera, an optical fiber connected to a pulse rangefinder, and/or position or distance sensors (Fig. 1- distance sensor 6; [0013]).
Regarding Claim 13, Reiner further teaches a system for continuously regulating parameters for adjusting an operation according to data supplied by the measuring device ([0013]-[0014]- discussing a controller).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner (DE10000347A1 with references to the machine English translation cited in IDS) in view of Gerhard (PGPub 2003/0062118 cited in IDS), Dichiara et al (EP3785885 cited in IDS), and Schmidt et al (US Pat. 4978825).
Regarding Claim 6, Reiner and Gerhart do not specify each one of the lower guide and the upper guide have pressing rollers comprising a filled silicone coating.
Schmidt teaches an alternative induction welder (Abstract) wherein the roller is preferably a composite glass cloth reinforced silicone resin (Col. 4, Lines 23-28) in order to have an RF-transparent roller that is not be heated itself by induction heating (Col. 4, Lines 23-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Reiner and Gerhard to include a silicone coated roller as taught by Schmidt with reasonable expectation of success to accommodate layered structures of varied thickness and to vary the amount of pressure applied to the structure in order to have an RF-transparent roller that is not be heated itself by induction heating (Col. 4, Lines 23-28).
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 Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 9/11/26/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights