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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 19, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no serious burden exists. This is not found persuasive because the inventions lack unity because the technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art as previously set forth. Further, the inventions have acquired an examination burden that includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. However, in the present application, the inventions require a different field of search and consequently the search is not coextensive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 19, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8, 10-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7 and 8, “device for vertically positioning the head (4)” should read “vertical head positioning device (4)”. (Examiner notes as currently recited it appears the reference character 4 refers to the head, not the device).
Claim 8 should read “The welding installation as claimed in claim 7 further comprising a support connected to a fixed structure by the device for vertically positioning the head which also supports the upper guide (singular) of the guide pairs”
Claim 10, Lines 2-3 should read “heating or cooling air jets disposed between the lower guide of the guide pairs”. (Examiner notes the previously recited “lower guides” does not correspond with previous recitations of the lower guide in singular form. For clarity, Examiner suggests “the lower guide (singular) of the guide pairs).
Claim 11, Lines 2-4 should read “a measuring device for measuring the welding zone that is disposed between the lower guide of the guide pairs”. (Examiner notes the previously recited “lower guides” does not correspond with previous recitations of the lower guide in singular form. For clarity, Examiner suggests “the lower guide (singular) of the guide pairs).
Claim 13, Lines 1-2 should read “The welding installation as claimed in claim 11 comprising a system”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 3 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 3, it is unclear whether each guide pair or at least one of the lower guides and/or upper guides is equipped with a system for regulating the displacement of movement in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as each guide pair being equipped with a system for regulating the displacement of movement in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane.
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).
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 having
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),
each pair comprising, respectively, a lower guide (Figs. 1 and 2- lower roller 3) and an upper guide (Figs. 1 and 2- upper roller 3) that are superposed and are able to receive between them the stack of parts by guiding in the direction perpendicular to the local welding plane (Figs. 1 and 2),
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 ([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) 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 ([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).
Reiner does not specify at least one pair of guides on each side of said induction head.
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].
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 each guide pair, having at least one of the lower guide and/or at least one of the upper guide, is equipped with 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 device for vertically positioning the head ([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 a support connected to a fixed structure by a device for vertically positioning the head 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 guides (See Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 11, Reiner further teaches a measuring device for measuring the welding zone that is disposed between the lower guides (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) 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
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 4/28/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights