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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/30/2024 The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites the term “about” in line 8. The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 15 recites the same term “about” so that the claim is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the terms “the handle” and “the transition portion” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim because they are not previously recited in claim 1. It is unclear if claim 8 being depended upon claim 2 because claim 2 recites these terms. For examination purposes, claim 8 depends upon claim 2.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-22 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claims 1 and 15.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10, 12-24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka (US 20170165771 A1) in view of Lin (US 5472133 A)
Regarding claim 1, Teraoka discloses
A soldering station (combo 10 and 60, see abstract) comprising:
an iron holder (10, see fig.9) (10, see fig.9) comprising a handle support portion (16, see fig.1) and a base portion (12, see fig.1 (See figs.8-10 , there is shown to be an axis through the center of the item 16 with respect to the item 12),
wherein the handle support portion (16) is shaped to receive the soldering iron (40) in a tip-up orientation (See figs.9-10).
Teraoka does not expressly disclose
a control console;
an iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron;
a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console;
wherein the axis forms an angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station.
However, regarding the limitation “the axis forms an angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (figs. 9-10), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Teraoka teaches the axis forms a certain angle (see annotated fig.9 below) relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station (horizontal surface contains the stand 10), and having a specific angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees to improve user accessibility and placement stability and reducing the likelihood of accidental sliding of the iron from the holder, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9 of Teraoka
The modification of Teraoka discloses the claimed limitation as set forth, but is silent on
a control console;
an iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron;
a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console;
Lin discloses a soldering iron rack, comprising:
a control console (2, see figs.1-2, the control circuit board 22 inside the base 2); and
an iron holder (1, see figs.1-3) operably coupled to the control console (2) for supporting a soldering iron (see abstract and fig.3),
the iron holder (1) comprising a handle support portion (11, see fig.1-2) and a base portion (18, see figs.1-2) operably coupling the handle support portion (11, see fig.1-2) to the control console (2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the soldering station of Teraoka to incorporate the control console of Lin so as the “iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron; a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console” as taught by Lin. Doing so provides ease of use to a user by providing all the necessary components for soldering in close proximity.
Regarding claim 2, Teraoka further discloses
wherein the soldering iron (40, See fig.9) comprises a handle (44, see fig.9), a transition portion (56, see fig.9), a shaft portion (46, see fig.2), a tip, and a longitudinal centerline (See annotated fig.2 below), and wherein the handle support portion (16, see fig.1) is shaped to correspond to a shape of the transition portion (56, see fig.9) of the soldering iron (40, See fig.9).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Teraoka
Regarding claim 3, Teraoka further discloses the axis of the handle support portion (see axis of item 16 in annotated fig.9 above) and the longitudinal centerline (see longitudinal centerline in annotated fig.2 above) of the soldering iron (40) are coaxial (See figs.9-10) while the soldering iron (40) is retained in the handle support portion (16, see figs.9-10)).
Regarding claim 4, Teraoka further discloses the handle support portion (16) is a sole point of contact between the iron holder (10) and the soldering iron (40) while the soldering iron (40) is held by the iron holder (10, see fig.9-10).
Regarding claim 5, Teraoka further discloses the iron holder (10) further comprises a heat shield (60, see fig.9) operably coupled to the handle support portion (16), wherein the heat shield (60, see fig.9) comprises an elevated end (66, see fig.9) and a lower end (See lower end in annotated fig.9 below), the elevated end (66) being disposed farther away from the handle support portion (16) than the lower end (See fig.9).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9 of Teraoka
Regarding claim 6, Teraoka further discloses the heat shield (60, see fig.9) comprises a metal plate (66, see para.0022) formed into a half pipe (see figs.9-10).
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on the heat shield is disposed at an angle of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (figs. 9-10), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Teraoka in view of Lin teaches the heat shield 60 is disposed at a certain angle (see annotated fig.9 above) relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station (horizontal surface contains the stand 10), and having a specific angle of between of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the angle of between of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station to improve user accessibility and placement stability and reducing the likelihood of accidental sliding of the iron from the holder, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, Teraoka further discloses the handle support portion (16) comprises a collar (combo 24-26) that defines a gap (space between the walls 24 and 26, See fig.1), wherein the handle (44) of the soldering iron (40) fits through the gap (see fig.9), but the transition portion (56) does not fit through the gap (space between the walls 24 and 26, See fig.1) such that the transition portion (56) is retained by the collar (combo 24-26, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 9, Teraoka further discloses the metal plate (66, see fig.9) has lateral sides that extend beyond the longitudinal centerline of the soldering iron (longitudinal centerline of 40) when the soldering iron (40) is disposed in the iron holder (10, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 10, Teraoka does not expressly disclose a length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end “exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip” for the purpose of providing the heat protection to the soldering station, since applicant has not disclosed that having the “length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip” provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Regarding claim 12, Teraoka further discloses the heat shield (60) is removably connected to the iron holder (10, see fig.8 and para.0022).
Regarding claim 13, Teraoka in view of Lin further discloses the control console (2 of Lin) comprises a power source (27-28, see fig.2 of Lin), a heat control (22, see fig.2 of Lin), and an accessory holding portion (bottom surface of 29, see fig.2 of Lin).
Regarding claim 14, Teraoka in view of Lin further discloses the accessory holding portion (bottom surface of 29 of Lin) defines a plane that is parallel to, and spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1) by a first distance (See fig.1-2, distance between bottom surface of 29 and top surface of 2), wherein the handle support portion (middle portion of 18) is spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1, see fig.2) by a second distance (See fig.2, distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2 ),wherein the heat shield (12) is spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1) by a third distance (See fig.2, distance between 12 and 2), and wherein the first distance (distance between bottom surface of 29 and top surface of 2), is less than the second distance (distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2), and the second distance (distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2) is less than the third distance (See fig.2, distance between 12 and 2) .
Regarding claim 15, Teraoka discloses A soldering station system (combo 10, 40 and 60, see fig.9) comprising:
a soldering iron (40, see fig.2 and 9) comprising a handle (44, see fig.9), a transition portion (56, see fig.9), a shaft portion (46, see fig.2), a tip (See annotated fig.2 below), and a longitudinal centerline (See annotated fig.2 below);
PNG
media_image2.png
814
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Teraoka
an iron holder (10, see fig.9) (10, see fig.9) comprising a handle support portion (16, see fig.1) and a base portion (12, see fig.1
wherein the handle support portion (16) is oriented with respect to the base portion (12) to define an axis (See figs.8-10 , there is shown to be an axis through the center of the item 16 with respect to the item 12),
Teraoka does not expressly disclose
a control console;
an iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron;
a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console;
wherein the axis forms an angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station.
However, regarding the limitation “the axis forms an angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station”, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (figs. 9-10), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Teraoka teaches the axis forms a certain angle (see annotated fig.9 below) relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station (horizontal surface contains the stand 10), and having a specific angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the angle of between about 10 degrees to about 40 degrees to improve user accessibility and placement stability and reducing the likelihood of accidental sliding of the iron from the holder, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9 of Teraoka
The modification of Teraoka discloses the claimed limitation as set forth, but is silent on
a control console;
an iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron;
a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console;
Lin discloses a soldering iron rack, comprising:
a control console (2, see figs.1-2, the control circuit board 22 inside the base 2); and
an iron holder (1, see figs.1-3) operably coupled to the control console (2) for supporting a soldering iron (see abstract and fig.3),
the iron holder (1) comprising a handle support portion (11, see fig.1-2) and a base portion (18, see figs.1-2) operably coupling the handle support portion (11, see fig.1-2) to the control console (2).
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the soldering station of Teraoka to incorporate the control console of Lin so as the “iron holder operably coupled to the control console for supporting a soldering iron; a base portion operably coupling the handle support portion to the control console” as taught by Lin. Doing so provides ease of use to a user by providing all the necessary components for soldering in close proximity.
Regarding claim 16, Teraoka further discloses the handle support portion (16) is shaped to correspond to a shape of the transition portion (56) of the soldering iron (40, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 17, Teraoka further discloses the axis of the handle support portion (see axis of item 16 in annotated fig.9 above) and the longitudinal centerline (see longitudinal centerline in annotated fig.2 above) of the soldering iron (40) are coaxial (See figs.9-10) while the soldering iron (40) is retained in the handle support portion (16, see figs.9-10).
Regarding claim 18, Teraoka further discloses the handle support portion (16) is a sole point of contact between the iron holder (10) and the soldering iron (40) while the soldering iron (40) is held by the iron holder (10, see fig.9-10).
Regarding claim 19, Teraoka further discloses the iron holder (10) further comprises a heat shield (60, see fig.9) operably coupled to the handle support portion (16), wherein the heat shield (60, see fig.9) comprises an elevated end (66, see fig.9) and a lower end (See lower end in annotated fig.9 below), the elevated end (66) being disposed farther away from the handle support portion (16) than the lower end (See fig.9).
PNG
media_image3.png
666
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.9 of Teraoka
Regarding claim 20, Teraoka further discloses the heat shield (60, see fig.9) comprises a metal plate (66, see para.0022) formed into a half pipe (see figs.9-10).
Regarding claim 21, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on the heat shield is disposed at an angle of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (figs. 9-10), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Teraoka in view of Lin teaches the heat shield 60 is disposed at a certain angle (see annotated fig.9 above) relative to a horizontal surface supporting the soldering station (horizontal surface contains the stand 10), and having a specific angle of between of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the angle is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the angle of between of 10 to 40 degrees relative to the horizontal surface supporting the soldering station to improve user accessibility and placement stability and reducing the likelihood of accidental sliding of the iron from the holder, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 22, Teraoka further discloses the handle support portion (16) comprises a collar (combo 24-26) that defines a gap (space between the walls 24 and 26, See fig.1), wherein the handle (44) of the soldering iron (40) fits through the gap (see fig.9), but the transition portion (56) does not fit through the gap (space between the walls 24 and 26, See fig.1) such that the transition portion (56) is retained by the collar (combo 24-26, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 23, Teraoka further discloses the metal plate (66, see fig.9) has lateral sides that extend beyond the longitudinal centerline of the soldering iron (longitudinal centerline of 40) when the soldering iron (40) is disposed in the iron holder (10, see fig.9).
Regarding claim 24, Teraoka does not expressly disclose a length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end “exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip” for the purpose of providing the heat protection to the soldering station, since applicant has not disclosed that having the “length of the heat shield measured from the elevated end to the lower end exceeds a length of the soldering iron measured from the transition portion to a distal end of the tip” provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Regarding claim 26, Teraoka further discloses the heat shield (60) is removably connected to the iron holder (10, see fig.8 and para.0022).
Regarding claim 27, Teraoka in view of Lin further discloses the control console (2 of Lin) comprises a power source (27-28, see fig.2 of Lin), a heat control (22, see fig.2 of Lin), and an accessory holding portion (bottom surface of 29, see fig.2 of Lin).
Regarding claim 28, Teraoka in view of Lin further discloses the accessory holding portion (bottom surface of 29 of Lin) defines a plane that is parallel to, and spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1) by a first distance (See fig.1-2, distance between bottom surface of 29 and top surface of 2), wherein the handle support portion (middle portion of 18) is spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1, see fig.2) by a second distance (See fig.2, distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2 ),wherein the heat shield (12) is spaced apart from the horizontal surface (top surface of 2) supporting the soldering station (1) by a third distance (See fig.2, distance between 12 and 2), and wherein the first distance (distance between bottom surface of 29 and top surface of 2), is less than the second distance (distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2), and the second distance (distance between the middle portion of 18 and the top surface 2) is less than the third distance (See fig.2, distance between 12 and 2) .
Claims 11 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka in view of Lin as applied to claims 6 and 20, respectively, and further in view of Meredith (US 0900292 A)
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the heat shield is perforated with holes.
Meredith discloses an Electric curling-iron heater, comprising:
the heat shield (1) perforated with holes (2, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat shield to be perforated with holes as taught by Meredith, in order to permit air to circulate around the asbestos !5 tube 20 within the shell and thus the shell is prevented from becoming heated so that all exposed parts of 'the device are cool and burns are prevented” (See col.3, lines 34-38 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 25, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth, except the heat shield is perforated with holes.
Meredith discloses an Electric curling-iron heater, comprising:
the heat shield (1) perforated with holes (2, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the heat shield to be perforated with holes as taught by Meredith, in order to permit air to circulate within the shell and thus the shell is prevented from becoming heated so that all exposed parts of 'the device are cool and burns are prevented” (See col.3, lines 34-38 of Meredith).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2327073 A discloses an improved combination soldering iron holder and current control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights