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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “said second substantially rectilinear segment (21a, 21b) being parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment (19a, 19b) and having a larger extension than the latter” (claim 5. Fig.2, figs.4-5 of instant application clearly show second rectilinear segment 21a, 21b is not parallel to first rectilinear segment 19 a, 19b because 19a and 19b are tilted or slanted with respect to 21a and 21b) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
(1) reference characters "13a, 13b" and "21a, 21b" have both been used to designate to the same element (hence, pointed to the same element, i.e., “branches” and “second substantially rectilinear segment”)
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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “it comprises” should be changed to “the device comprises”.
Claim 1 recites “a filament (12), which substantially develops” should be changed to “a filament (12), which .
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.
Claims 4-5, 8 and 10-15 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 4 recites “said reciprocal connection portion (17)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding this claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites “said second substantially rectilinear segment being parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding these claim limitations.
Claim 8 recites “of said second substantially rectilinear segment of said branches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding this claim limitation.
Claim 10 recites “said support” at line 2, “one of said half shells” at line 4 and “said electrodes” at line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding this claim limitation.
Claim 11 recites “said shell (24)” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding this claim limitation.
Claim 12 recites “said support (23) has, on said face (28), the following being inserted in said seating (30): said second substantially rectilinear segment (21a, 21b) … a corresponding one of said walls (29a, 29b), so that it is contained within the overall size of said support (23) and does not protrude from said face (28)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding these claim limitations.
Claim 12 recites “said face”. It is unclear what structure includes said face.
Claim 12 recites “it is contained within the overall size of said support”. It is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 13 recites “said seating (30) of the support (23)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding these claim limitations.
Claim 14 recites “said first end portion (32), … said second end portion (33), which corresponds to the base of the core of said T-shaped section, which is protruding from said face (28) of said support (23)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding these claim limitations.
Claim 15 recites “said support (23) … said second substantially rectilinear segment (21a) … said second substantially rectilinear segment (21b)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding these claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0327335).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto et al. discloses “a device” (abstract and fig.1) “for soldering the interconnections of photovoltaic panels” (intended use), wherein it comprises:
“an inductor” (1 pointed at the inductor), which in turn comprises “a filament” (fig.19A-B, 2 and 3), “which substantially develops so as to form two parallel branches” (fig.19A-B, shows two parallel branches 2): “a first branch” (one of 2) and “a second branch” (another one of 2),
“an insert” ([0081], i.e., the insulator 4), “which has a longitudinal development, which is at least partly surrounded longitudinally by said filament” (fig.19A-B, 2 and 3) and “is interposed between said two branches” (one of 2 and another one of 2).
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto et al. discloses said inductor (fig.1, 1 pointed at the inductor) comprises a pair of electrodes (annotated fig.19B), each one of said branches (both 2) of said filament (2 and 3) developing starting from a respective one of said electrodes (annotated fig.19B) toward “a U-shaped reciprocal connection portion” (3).
Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto et al. discloses said electrodes (annotated fig.19B) are symmetrical with respect to the plane of symmetry of said device (fig.1) that is parallel to the lying plane of one of said branches (fig.19A-B, shows two parallel branches 2) of said filament, each one of said electrodes (annotated fig.19B) having a duct (fig.2 includes a duct 5. [0093], i.e., The cooling water passage 5) “in fluidic connection with the respective one of said branches of said filament” ([0094], i.e., In the present embodiment, the cooling water enters the induction heating coil 1 from the power supply section 2, passes through the coil section 3, then returns to the power supply section 2, and is discharged from the power supply section 2 to the outside of the induction heating coil 1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto et al. discloses it comprises a support (9) of said insert (4) “which has a longitudinal development and an extension that is substantially equal to the extension of the latter” (4 and 9 are substantially equal) and “of said second substantially rectilinear segment” (one side of 2 has a segment) of said branches (2) of said filament (2 and 3), said support (9) being interposed “between said first substantially rectilinear segment and said second substantially rectilinear segment” (one side of 2 has a first segment and another side of 2 has a second segment) of said branches (one side of 2 and another side of 2) of said filament (2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto et al. discloses said inductor (2 and 3) is contained at least partly in a substantially flat shell (8 includes 11 and 12. [0081], i.e., The main body 8 is a substantially L-shaped portion when viewed in a side view, and extends in the front-rear direction in an elongated manner. The main bodies 8 are arranged close to each other with the insulator 4 interposed therebetween. Each main body 8 includes a longitudinal wall portion 11 and a lower wall portion 12), consisting of two half shells (8 has a left side and right side) “which are symmetrical with respect to the plane of symmetry of said device” (fig.1) that is parallel to the lying plane of one of said branches (one of 2 and another 2) of said filament (2 and 3), said half shells (left side of 8 and right side of 8) being respectively: “a first half shell” (right side of 8 has an imaginary plane), which is substantially parallel to the lying plane of said first branch (left side of 2) of said filament (2 and 3) and is proximate to said first branch (left side of 2), a second half shell (left side of 8 has another imaginary plane), which is substantially parallel to “the lying plane of said second branch” (right side of 2) of said filament (2 and 3) and is proximate to said second branch (right side of 2).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto et al. discloses said support (9) is at least partly protruding from said shell (8) and has a face (9 has a side face) that protrudes from said shell (8) “which is able to be facing and substantially parallel to a photovoltaic panel” (the face of support is capable of facing workpiece depends on the location and shape of workpiece. Examiner noted that the workpiece (i.e., photovoltaic panel) is not part of the device so that it is not given patentable weight) “in the operating phase of said device (fig.1 shows the device).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto et al. discloses said seating (the seating is formed by the gap of 9) of the support (9) has a housing (9 has a housing) for said insert (4) that is “contoured for the same shape coupling to a first end portion of said insert (left portion of 4) that is opposite to “a second end portion” (right portion of 4) “able to contact a header ribbon of a photovoltaic panel” (insert is capable of contact the workpiece. Examiner noted that “a header ribbon of a photovoltaic panel” is workpiece. MPEP 2115), said housing (9) being interposed between said first branch (right side of 2) and said second branch (left side of 2) of said filament (2 and 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0327335) in view of Chappell et al. (US 2017/0238375).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto et al. discloses said insert (insulator 4) is made of
Yamamoto teach the said insert is insulator.
Yamamoto et al. is silent regarding glass ceramic material for insulator.
Chappell et al. teaches “glass ceramic material” ([0030] FIG. 1 shows an induction hob 1 according to an embodiment. The induction hob 1 comprises a cooking surface 10, e.g. a glass ceramic plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamamoto with Chappell et al., by replacing Yamamoto’s insulator with Chappell et al.’s insulator, allows magnetic fields to pass through without absorbing them, effectively insulating the coils.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0327335) in view of Reul (WO 2020016364).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto et al. discloses all the features of claim limitation except each one of said branches of said filament comprises, between the respective one of said electrodes and said reciprocal connection portion, in the following order: an arc-like segment for connection to the respective one of said electrodes, a first substantially rectilinear segment, a substantially U-shaped curvilinear segment, a second substantially rectilinear segment, which is parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment.
Reul teaches each one of said branches (annotated fig.9) of said filament (annotated fig.9, 13I pointed the filament) comprises, between “the respective one of said electrodes” (annotated fig.9) and “said reciprocal connection portion” (annotated fig.9), in the following order:
“an arc-like segment” (annotated fig.9) for connection to “the respective one of said electrodes” (annotated fig.9), “a first substantially rectilinear segment” (annotated fig.9), “a substantially U-shaped curvilinear segment” (annotated fig.9), “a second substantially rectilinear segment” (annotated fig.9), “which is parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment” (annotated fig.9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamamoto with Reul, by replacing Yamamoto et al.’s induction coil with Reul’s induction coil, to provide desired shape of coil to adapt to different applications.
PNG
media_image1.png
1600
1116
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0327335) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170264154).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto et al. discloses “the lying plane of said first branch of said filament is parallel to the lying plane of said second branch of said filament” (annotated fig.9 shows branches. Each branch can be an imaginary plane that is parallel to another imaginary plane), “said second substantially rectilinear segment being parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment” (annotated fig.1 shows said second substantially rectilinear segment being parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment)
Yamamoto et al. is silent regarding said second substantially rectilinear segment being parallel to said first substantially rectilinear segment and having a larger extension than the latter.
Kobayashi et al. teaches “said second substantially rectilinear segment” (fig.2, 2a) being parallel to “said first substantially rectilinear segment” (fig.2, 3a) and “having a larger extension than the latter” (2a having a larger extension than latter 3a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamamoto et al. with Kobayashi et al., by modifying Yamamoto et al.’s the length of first and second substantially rectilinear segments according to Kobayashi et al.’s length of first and second substantially rectilinear segments, to provide desired length of heating region to adapt to different applications.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2015/0327335) in view of Fuchs (US 20050258168).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto et al. discloses “said filament is made of copper” ([0074] The induction heating coil 1 is made from a material that is excellent in electrical conductivity and thermal conductivity. Examples of this material may include pure copper and oxygen-free copper) and “has a tubular section with a [0008] A coil section is formed in a cylindrical shape with thin shell as a whole).
Yamamoto et al. is silent regarding square contour for filament.
Fuchs teaches “square contour” ([0047], i.e., for the two essentially square induction coils) for filament. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamamoto et al. with Fuchs, by modifying the shape of Yamamoto et al.’s induction coil with Fuchs induction coil, to provide geometry matching, maximizing magnetic coupling and energy transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights