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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 21-28, drawn to a process of making.
Group II, claims 29-36, drawn to a product.
Group III, claims 37-40, drawn to a process of using.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of that noted below, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Siracki et al. (US 2007/0017955 A1) in view of St. Pierre (US 5,125,933) as noted in the rejection below.
During a telephone conversation with Todd Coffeen on 1/22/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the Invention I, claims 21-28. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 29-40 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 26 and 27 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 26 recites, “integrating the mold into a welding cup that includes an internal area containing a predetermined amount of welding material ignited by the ignition charge”. It is unclear as to how mold can be integrated into ignited welding material. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as -- integrating the mold into a welding cup that includes an internal area containing a predetermined amount of welding material to be ignited by the ignition charge--.
Claim 27 recites, “the welding material to ignite the amount of welding material”. It is unclear if this welding material is the predetermined amount of weld material or that of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as --the predetermined amount of welding material to ignite the predetermined amount of welding material--.
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 21-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siracki et al. (US 2007/0017955 A1) in view of St. Pierre (US 5,125,933).
Regarding claim 21, Siracki teaches:
A method of forming an ignition system [device (100)] for an exothermic welding system, the method comprising:
providing a binder [binders may include sodium silicate and potassium hydroxide; 0039];
combining the binder solution with welding material to form an agglomeration mixture [agglomeration material (154), a slurry that includes a metal oxide powder, a reducing agent, a binder all mixed in water; 0033-0035, 0044, and figure 4];
forming the agglomeration mixture onto a conductor [wires (108,110)], to surround at least a portion of the conductor [see figure 4]; and
heating the conductor and the agglomeration mixture [heating; 0045], so that the binder binds the welding material to the conductor as an agglomerated ignition charge [0040, 0045, and figure 3].
Siracki does not teach:
the binder solution includes sugar and water;
heating to pyrolyze the sugar of the agglomeration mixture, so that the pyrolyzed sugar binds.
St. Pierre teaches sodium silicate, sucrose/water binder systems, and sacchariferous-based binders are functionally equivalent binders that are carbonized; i.e. pyrolyzed; 2:29-43.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that pyrolyzed sugar could be substituted for sodium silicate since they are known equivalent binders, minus any unexpected results. Furthermore, one would have been motivated to use sugar since it is environmentally friendly or due to cost.
Regarding claim 22, Siracki does not teach:
wherein the binder solution has a water to sugar mass ratio of between 1:1 and 2:1.
However, as noted above Siracki teaches adding water to the binder to make the slurry and St. Pierre teaches a sugar/water binder system.
Note that there is intrinsically a working range of water to binder since Siracki teaches a slurry with a binder and water. It would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to find a range that works, including that claimed, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 23, Siracki teaches:
wherein the agglomeration mixture has a binder solution to welding material mass ratio of between 0.10 and 0.30 [20-50% less or about 45% less; 0044].
Regarding claim 24, Siracki does not teach:
wherein heating the agglomeration mixture includes: heating the agglomeration mixture to at least 176.6 degrees Celsius for between 3 and 9 hours.
Note that pyrolysis of sucrose begins around 200°C.
Thus, one performing the prior art method would be heating agglomeration to above 176.6°C. As for how long, there is intrinsically a working range of time when the binder is pyrolyzed enough to be useful; i.e. dried and solid, and such a time is dependent upon things like temperature, amount of binder, workpiece thickness, etc. It would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to find a range that works, including that claimed, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, Siracki does not teach:
wherein heating the agglomerated mixture includes: baking the agglomerated mixture within a mold.
Siracki teaches crucible assembly (50) which comprises container (52), igniter (66), and powdered weld metal (64); 0011. Also, Siracki teaches several advantages of using the agglomerated material over powdered materials such as; the ignition may be more reliable than with use of powdered materials, agglomerated material may involve looser tolerances in the types or varieties of powder particle sizes that may be utilized, and agglomerated material will not separate during shipping.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace powdered weld metal (54) with agglomerated material device (100) due to these advantages. Additionally, device (100) would benefit from container (52) in that it discourages ingress of moisture or other contaminants that may adversely affect the properties of the weld material.
As for baking the agglomerated mixture within the container; note that the concept of a mold becoming part of the final product can be seen in everyday objects like a baking cup for a cupcake, casing for a sausage, and paper/PVC mold for a model rocket engine.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the agglomerated mixture could be pressed into the container or placed in the container after pressing and heated/baked in order to secure the agglomerated mixture to the container, ensure the mixture keeps its shape, and/or to perform batch processing.
Regarding claim 28, Siracki teaches:
wherein the conductor is arranged for an electrical current to pass through the conductor to ignite the ignition charge [see figures 3, 8, 10B, 13].
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