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 II, claims 6-16 in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “A PCT national stage application may include more than one invention if the inventions are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. A group of inventions is considered linked to form a single general inventive concept where there is a technical relationship among the inventions that involves at least one common or corresponding "special technical feature.””. This is not found persuasive because even through the claims share some the common technical features but NOT the invention, that is the process/method as claimed can be used to make another and materially different system and/or apparatus such 3-D printing, cladding, welding, soldering, etc. The invention has acquired a separate status (i.e. a process/method) in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter. Furthermore, there are two distinct CPC classifications, i.e. B23K 1/0016, B23K 00 for a soldering, brazing, welding,… device/apparatus and B23K 3/00, B23K 2101/00 for the process/method. A serious search and/or examination burden for examiner if restriction were not done.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5 and 19-20 are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, a comma (,) is needed after claim 7 in the preamble, i.e. “claim 7,”.
In claim 11, a comma (,) is needed after claim 10 in the preamble, i.e. “claim 10,”.
In claim13, a comma (,) is needed after claim 6, not a dash (-) at line 2 in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "8" and "18" have both been used to designate “an electric arc”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10” has been used to designate both “a cable shoe” and “an electrically conducting connecting piece”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for engaging”, “means for supporting”, “means for moving”, “processing means”, “means for generating”, “means for calculating”, and “switching means” in claim 6; and “processing means” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraph [0030] of the instant invention publication (US 20250073799) discloses according to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided an apparatus for brazing an electrically conducting connecting piece to a workpiece of electrically conducting material by means of a temperature-controlled brazing process in which the heat necessary for brazing is generated by striking an electric arc between a carbon electrode and the electrically conducting connecting piece, the apparatus including: [0031] (a) means for engaging an electrically conducting connecting piece towards a workpiece, including a guard ring and a carbon electrode, [0032] (b) means for supporting the electrode including means for moving the electrode between a position in which it engages the electrically conducting connecting piece in turn engaged by said means for engaging, and a retracted position in which it is lifted therefrom; [0033] (c) a DC voltage unit for providing and applying a DC voltage of certain polarity between said electrically conducting connecting piece and said carbon electrode, and wherein said DC voltage unit includes a voltage regulating unit, [0034] (d) a voltage sensor for measuring said voltage, between the electrically conducting connecting piece and the carbon electrode, [0035] (e) a current sensor for measuring the electrical current passing through said carbon electrode; [0036] (f) processing means including means for generating an output signal controlling said voltage-regulating unit and further including means for calculating, in real time, continuously or continually, the electrical power developed in said arc, [0037] (g) switching means operable to connect said means for applying a voltage in electrical circuit with said electrode and with such electrically conducting connecting piece whereby, when said means for engaging is applied, and the switching means is operated to close said electrical circuit, said means for supporting and moving raises the electrode from the workpiece to strike an electric arc between the electrode and the electrically conducting connecting piece, and [0038] (h) wherein the carbon electrode is provided with a pointy, tapering or bevelled first end for the electrical arc, [0039] (i) wherein the DC voltage unit is configured such that the certain polarity being that the DC voltage applied is using the carbon electrode as the negative pole, and using the electrically conducting connecting piece as the positive pole.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 6-16 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an electrically conducting connecting piece" at line 6 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this electrically conducting connecting piece is the same as the one recited at lines 1-2. If it is so, then “an” should be replaced with "the" or "said".
The limitation "a workpiece" at line 6 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this workpiece is the same as the one recited at line 2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
The limitation "a carbon electrode" at line 7 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this carbon electrode is the same as the one recited at line 4. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the electrical current” at line 17 in the claim.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the electrical power” at line 21 in the claim.
The limitation "an electric arc" at line 26 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this carbon electrode is the same as the one recited at lines 3-4. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations “the negative pole” at line 31 and “the positive pole” at line 32in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the brazing site" at line 2 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the processor" at line 4 and “the parameters” at line 5 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Furthermore, the limitation "voltage and time" at line 5 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this voltage and time is the same as the one recited at line 4. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Regarding claim 11, recites the limitation "guard rings" at line 2 in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “guard rings” and “guard ring” as recited in the preceding claim 6 at line 7 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (guard rings).
Furthermore, it is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between “electrodes” at line 2 and “a carbon electrode” as recited in the preceding claim 6 at line 4 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (electrodes).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "an electrically conducting connecting piece" at line 2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this electrically conducting connecting piece is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 6 at lines 1-2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Furthermore, the limitation "a workpiece" at lines 2-3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear for whether this workpiece is the same as the one recited in the preceding claim 6 at line 2. If it is so, then "the" or "said" should be used.
Claims 14-15 recite “The combination of claim…” in the preamble at line 1. However, claims 14-15 are apparatus claims. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “The combination” in the preceding claim(s). Clarification is needed.
For examination purpose, claim 14 has been treated as being dependent from claim 13 and claim 15 depends on claim 14.
The dependent claims are rejected for their inherited deficiencies on rejected independent claim 6
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. (US 6,899,261). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose similar subject matter as the instant invention.
Instant Invention
US 6,899,261
Claim 6:
An apparatus for brazing an electrically conducting connecting piece to a workpiece of electrically conducting material by means of a temperature- controlled brazing process in which the heat necessary for brazing is generated by striking an electric arc between a carbon electrode and the electrically conducting connecting piece, the apparatus including comprising:
(a) means for engaging an electrically conducting connecting piece towards a workpiece, including a guard ring and a carbon electrode;
(b) means for supporting the carbon electrode including means for moving the carbon electrode between a position in which the carbon electrode engages the electrically conducting connecting piece in turn engaged by the means for engaging, and a retracted position in which the carbon electrode is lifted from the electrically conducting connecting piece;
(c) a DC voltage unit for providing and applying a DC voltage of certain polarity between the electrically conducting connecting piece and the carbon electrode, wherein the DC voltage unit includes a voltage regulating unit;
(d) a voltage sensor for measuring the voltage between the electrically conducting connecting piece and the carbon electrode;
(e) a current sensor for measuring the electrical current passing through the carbon electrode;
(f) processing means including means for generating an output signal controlling the voltage-regulating unit and further including means for calculating, in real time, continuously or continually, the electrical power developed in the arc;
(g) switching means operable to connect the DC voltage unit in an electrical circuit with the carbon electrode and with the electrically conducting connecting piece whereby, when the means for engaging is applied, and the switching means is operated to close the electrical circuit, the means for supporting and moving raises the carbon electrode from the workpiece to strike an electric arc between the carbon electrode and the electrically conducting connecting piece;
wherein the DC voltage unit is configured such that the certain polarity being that the DC voltage applied is using the carbon electrode as the negative pole, and using the electrically conducting connecting piece as the positive pole; and
wherein the carbon electrode is provided with a pointy, tapering, or beveled end at the end facing the electric arc.
Claim 1:
Apparatus for brazing a first workpiece of an electrically conducting material to a second workpiece of electrically conducting material by means of a temperature-controlled brazing process in which the heat necessary for brazing is generated by striking an electric arc, the apparatus including:
(a) means for engaging a workpiece;
(b) a carbon electrode;
(c) means for supporting the carbon electrode including means for moving the carbon electrode between a position in which it engages a workpiece in turn engaged by said means for engaging, and a retracted position in which it is lifted therefrom;
(d) means for applying a voltage between said workpiece and said carbon electrode, said means for applying a voltage including a voltage-regulating unit;
(e) a voltage sensor for measuring said voltage;
(f) a current sensor for measuring the electrical current passing through said carbon electrode;
(g) processing means including means for generating an output signal controlling said voltage-regulating unit and further including means for calculating, in real time, continuously or continually, the electrical power developed in said arc;
(h) switching means operable to connect said means for applying a voltage in electrical circuit with said electrode and with such workpiece whereby, when said means for engaging is applied to a workpiece and the switching means is operated to close said electrical circuit, said means for supporting and moving raises the carbon electrode from the workpiece and an electric arc is struck between the electrode and the workpiece, carbon powder released from the carbon electrode during the brazing process accumulates on the underlying workpiece to form a thin layer on the surface of the workpiece, whereby the electric arc is maintained between two carbon poles, which stabilises said arc and distributes the temperature.
Claim 10:
The apparatus according to claim 7,
including a gripping sleeve around the guard ring, whereby the guard ring together with the gripping sleeve shields an operator from the arc and from hot gases.
Claim 5:
Apparatus according to claim 2,
including a gripping sleeve around said guard ring, whereby the guard ring together with the gripping sleeve shields an operator from the arc and from hot gases.
Claim 11:
The apparatus according to claim 10
in which the gripping sleeve ejects with a longitudinal movement spent electrodes and guard rings.
Claim 6:
Apparatus according to claim 5,
in which the gripping sleeve ejects, with a longitudinal movement, spent carbon electrodes and guard rings.
Claim 12:The apparatus according to claims 6,
wherein the processing means is for controlling external units, including battery chargers, generators, and motors in order to regulate these external units.
Claim 7:
Apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein said processing means is additionally capable of controlling external units including battery chargers, generators and motors in order to regulate said units.
Claim 13:
The apparatus according to any of claims 6,
in combination with an electrically conducting connecting piece for brazing to a workpiece, the electrically conducting connecting piece having on one side a layer of brazing metal, with a flux layer between the workpiece and the layer of brazing metal.
Claim 8:
Apparatus according to claim 1,
in combination with a first workpiece for brazing to a second workpiece, the first workpiece having on one side a layer of brazing metal, with a flux layer between the first workpiece and the layer of brazing metal.
Claim 14:
The combination of claim 13,
in which the layer of brazing metal is provided by a brazing clip applied to the workpiece.
Claim 9:
The combination of claim 8,
in which the layer of brazing metal is provided by a brazing clip applied to said first workpiece.
Claim 15:
The combination of claim 14
including an electrical connection to the connecting piece to provide a grounding contact for the apparatus.
Claim 11:
The combination of claim 9,
including an electrical connection to the connecting piece to provide a grounding contact for the apparatus.
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.
Claim(s) 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pettersen (US 6,899,261) in view of Truax et al. (US 2,442,152).
Regarding claim 6, an apparatus 5 (figure 1, i.e. a brazing gun) for brazing an electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) to a workpiece (14, e.g. railway track and/or pipework) of electrically conducting material by means of a temperature- controlled brazing process in which the heat necessary for brazing is generated by striking an electric arc (8) between a carbon electrode (6) and the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal), the apparatus including comprising (abstract):
(a) means for engaging an electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) towards a workpiece (14), including a guard ring (9) and a carbon electrode (6) (claim 1);
(b) means for supporting the carbon electrode (6) including means for moving the carbon electrode (6) between a position in which the carbon electrode engages the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) in turn engaged by the means for engaging, and a retracted position in which the carbon electrode (6) is lifted from the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) (claim 1);
(c) a DC voltage unit (not shown, i.e. in the electronic unit 2 in figure 1) for providing and applying a DC voltage of certain polarity between the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) and the carbon electrode (6), wherein the DC voltage unit includes a voltage regulating unit (col. 12, lines 9-29; claims 1 and 13);
(d) a voltage sensor for measuring the voltage between the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) and the carbon electrode (6) (claims 1 and 13);
(e) a current sensor for measuring the electrical current passing through the carbon electrode (6) (claims 1 and 13);
(f) processing means (i.e. a processing unit) including means for generating an output signal controlling the voltage-regulating unit and further including means for calculating, in real time, continuously or continually, the electrical power developed in the arc (8) (col. 12, lines 9-29; claims 1 and 13);
(g) switching means operable to connect the DC voltage unit in an electrical circuit with the carbon electrode (6) and with the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) whereby, when the means for engaging is applied, and the switching means is operated to close the electrical circuit, the means for supporting and moving raises the carbon electrode (6) from the workpiece (14) to strike an electric arc (8) between the carbon electrode (6) and the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) (abstract; claims 1 and 12);
wherein the DC voltage unit (not shown, i.e. in the electronic unit 2 in figure 1) is configured such that the certain polarity being that the DC voltage applied is using the carbon electrode (6) as the negative pole, and using the electrically conducting connecting piece as the positive pole (col. 4, lines 8-16).
Pettersen discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein the carbon electrode is provided with a pointy, tapering, or beveled end at the end facing the electric arc.
However, Truax et al. teaches wherein the carbon electrode (14) is provided with a pointy, tapering (17), or beveled end at the end facing the electric arc (col. 2, lines 17-25).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a soldering tool. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pettersen and Truax before him or her, to include such an electrode shaping of Truax because it allows an extremely simple construction of the tool, the ease of replacement of soldering points. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides highly convenient and efficient in use (col. 1, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 7, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses wherein the voltage regulating unit is configured to automatically provide heat using a first electrical power during a first time-portion of a total brazing time, and a second electrical power during a second time-portion of the total brazing time (col. 12, lines 9-29; claims 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 8, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses wherein the first electrical power is set to a value in order to rapidly heat up the brazing site; and wherein the processing means (i.e. a processing unit) is configured to calculate a value of the second electrical power, that is lower than the first electrical power, to maintain the achieved temperature at the brazing site (col. 12, lines 9-29, lines 48-56; claims 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 9, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses wherein the apparatus 5 (figure 1, i.e. a brazing gun) is provided with input organs to set appropriate parameters (i.e. voltage levels, resistors, time, current, etc.) for an electrical cross section area of the conductor to be brazed; and wherein the processor (i.e. the processing unit) is configured to calculate time and voltage for the brazing, taking into account the parameters to provide appropriate voltage and time to accomplish a suitable amount of heat during an appropriate length of time. (col. 5, lines 8-22; col. 12, lines 9-29).
Regarding claim 10, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses a gripping sleeve (18) around the guard ring, whereby the guard ring (9) together with the gripping sleeve shields an operator from the arc (8) and from hot gases (col. 4, lines 1-7; claim 5).
Regarding claim 11, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses in which the gripping sleeve (18) ejects with a longitudinal movement spent electrodes and guard rings (9) (claim 6).
Regarding claim 12, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses wherein the processing means (i.e. a processing unit) is for controlling external units, including battery chargers, generators, and motors in order to regulate these external units (col. 12, lines 52-56; claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses in combination with an electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) for brazing to a workpiece (14), the electrically conducting connecting piece (i.e. a metal) having on one side a layer of brazing metal, with a flux layer between the workpiece (14) and the layer of brazing metal (claim 8).
Regarding claim 14, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses in which the layer of brazing metal is provided by a brazing clip (27) applied to the workpiece (14) (col. 7, lines 14-35; claim 9).
Regarding claim 15, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Pettersen further discloses an electrical connection to the connecting piece to provide a grounding contact for the apparatus (col. 4, lines 8-15; claim 11).
Regarding claim 16, Pettersen in view of Truax discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Truax further discloses wherein the pointy, tapering, or beveled end of the carbon electrode (14) has a top angle of between 90 and 150 degrees (col. 2, lines 3-25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Pettersen and Truax before him or her, to include such an electrode angle of Truax because it allows an extremely simple construction of the tool, the ease of replacement of soldering points. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides highly convenient and efficient in use (col. 1, lines 25-26).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pettersen (US 20070187459). And Sholle et al. (US 2,826,439).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights