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 without traverse of Group I, Species ii, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 4/9/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “further pressing device 20’” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “PLC” in claim 18 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: concerning claim 12, while support for “sensor device may be adapted to detect the position of the plunger with an accuracy of at least ±10 μm or less” and “the measurement resolution of the sensor device with respect to the position of the printing stamp may be ±1 μm or more” can be found in PA Pub 0034 support for the position of the pressing punch being within these ranges cannot be found.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in PA Pub 0062, sensor (5) is a hydraulic pressure sensor while in 0072 sensor (5) is a position sensor, thus it is unclear as to how it can be both.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a workpiece holder… for holding”, “a pressing device arranged and adapted to”, and “a sensor device for generating” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 6, there is one too many “and/or”s. 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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 the limitation “pressing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification recites pressing device (20) and the drawings have the reference character there is no clear linkage as to what constitutes the pressing device; i.e. is the pressing device components (5, 28, 24, 26, 22, 32, 36) or just some of these. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the sensor device detects a position of a pressing punch and/or wherein the sensor device detects the pressing force applied to the workpiece”. It is unclear as to how one sensor can detect both position and force.
Claim 12 recites “an accuracy of at least ±10 µm or less”. It is unclear how the accuracy can be less when it is already at least. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as noted in the rejection of this claim.
Claim 17 recites “at least one sensor signal”. It is unclear if this signal is the same as that of claim 1 or not. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as it is.
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.
Claims 1-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses:
An automatic high-temperature joining furnace [hot press device (A); figure 1], configured for diffusion bonding of joining materials, comprising:
a heating chamber [heating chamber furnace (2)] with a heating device [heater (2C)],
a workpiece holder [unlabeled component resting on pressing surface (4a)] arranged in the heating chamber for holding a workpiece to be processed in the joining furnace,
a pressing device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] arranged and adapted to exert a pressing force on the workpiece,
a sensor device [not shown; 0027] for generating at least one sensor signal [note that it is inherent that the sensor device generates a signal in order for the controller to receive information from the sensor device], and
a control device adapted to control at least the pressing device in response to the at least one sensor signal [0027].
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the sensor device is configured to detect
at least one of the following process parameters:
thickness of the workpiece, position of a pressing punch in the pressing device, position of a press abutment, pressing force, hydraulic pressure, or path of the pressing device; and/or
to generate at least one sensor signal therefrom [0027].
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses:
further comprising at least one further sensor device for simultaneously detecting one or more process parameters and for generating at least one further sensor signal [0027].
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the pressing device comprises a hydraulic device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] as a pressing force generator and builds up the pressing force by building up a hydraulic pressure [this is an inherent operation of a hydraulic cylinder], and/or
wherein the pressing device comprises an electric spindle.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses:
further comprising an input device [controller; 0037], for inputting process parameter specifications, and/or
further comprising an output device, for displaying or selecting process parameters and/or a control program.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the pressing device comprises a pressing plate [upper punch (6)], with which the pressing force is applied to the workpiece, and/or
wherein the pressing device comprises a pressing cylinder [hydraulic cylinder (3)], and/or
wherein the pressing device comprises a plurality of pressing punches [press rams (7a)].
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the high-temperature joining furnace comprises an outer frame [support mechanism (1)], and
wherein the pressing device is arranged on the outer frame and/or is supported on the outer frame [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the outer frame is designed to be movable and/or deformable [note anything can be moved].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tanaka discloses:
As noted in the PA Pub, “[0071] In other words, the pressing device 20 is supported on the outer frame 7, 9, 10 at a “support point” in order to brace itself to apply the pressing force to the workpiece 50. The support point is referred to as press abutment 18, as the “support point” forms an abutment for absorbing the pressing force. In FIGS. 4 and 5, press abutment 18 is therefore only the place where the pressing device 20 is supported.”
further comprising a press abutment [the only area where hydraulic cylinder (3) is supported on upper frame (1b)] which is prepared in such a way that a lateral displacement and/or deformation of the press abutment takes place by means of an application of a compressive force by the pressing device to the workpiece; and
wherein the pressing device is set up in such a way that a pre-tensioning force can be built up to a supporting frame element during a pressing operation.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the prior art references above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as prepared in such a way that a lateral displacement and/or deformation of the press abutment takes place, that a pre-tensioning force can be built up, etc. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the control device is adapted to additionally control the heating device [0027].
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the workpiece holder serves as a counter-pressing element, and/or
wherein the pressing device presses the workpiece against the workpiece holder [see figure 1].
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (CN 111229904 A).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the sensor device detects a position of a pressing punch and/or
wherein the sensor device detects the pressing force applied to the workpiece.
However, Tanaka does teach the hydraulic cylinder is controlled by the controller; 0027.
Gong teaches displacement sensor (1) is arranged on the punch cylinder 5, and the displacement sensor (1) is used to collect the elongation displacement signal of the punch cylinder 5; under “Description”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Gong sensor in order to control the displacement of any part of the press device, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the sensor device is adapted to detect the position of the pressing punch with an accuracy of at least ±10 µm or less, and/or with an accuracy of ±1µm or more.
However, since the claimed sensor and that of Gong are structurally identical it is the examiner’s position that the Gong sensor is capable of this. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a displacement sensor that is capable of the claimed accuracy due to the precision of the workpieces being worked upon.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) in view of Gong et al. (CN 111229904 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Frank et al. (US 7,669,749 B2) and Nakajima (JP 2007-75840 A).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the control device is designed to determine a pressing force required for the workpiece for a joining operation by means of detection and evaluation of the sensor signal or signals and to automatically control the pressing device on a basis of the determined required pressing force.
Nakajima teaches a hot press comprising controller (10) wherein the controller controls the hot press via signals from force sensor (8) or displacement sensor (9); abstract.
Frank teaches a welding machine comprising control unit (13) wherein the control unit is designed to without individually entering data perform welding by determining/sensing a characteristic of the workpiece, such as the height, width, deformation energy, or constriction, and retrieving stored welding parameters based on the sensed characteristic; abstract and 2:4-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate top incorporate the Frank concept and sense a characteristic of the workpiece such as height, width, deformation energy, constriction or any other variable; such as force or displacement as taught by Nakajima, in order to automatically retrieve stored welding parameters based on the sensed characteristic.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Edenfield et al. (US 2019/0160573 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the control device provides at least one selectable control program, and/or a pressing program.
Edenfield teaches a bonding apparatus wherein multiple selectable jobs are stored in the memory of the controller; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Edenfield job selecting concept into the Tanaka apparatus in order to make it easier to use.
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the control device is further prepared to adapt at least one sensor signal during execution of the bonding in such a way that process parameters are changed [0027].
Tanaka does not teach:
the control device is further prepared to adapt the at least one selectable control program in response to at least one sensor signal during execution of the control program.
However, since the Tanaka device has been modified to allow one to select a job, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further configure the controller to change the process parameters of the selected job in order to achieve a desired output, to control quality, and/or stop the process parameters should the signal fall outside of an acceptable range.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the at least one selectable control program is stored in a program memory of the high-temperature joining furnace [this is addressed in the rejection of claim 16], and/or wherein the control device comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735