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 .
Priority
The claim to priority to 63/486,863, filed on February 24, 2023 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on August 8, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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, the “two or more pieces of material” (claims 4-5) 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 reference character “107” has been used to designate both “locking pin” and “fitting” (Fig. 1). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phraseology which can be implied, i.e. “the present disclosure describes” and “Other…are also described”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 support structure configured to provide support for one or more orbital welding components” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunze (US Pub. 2022/0080536) (new cited).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Kunze discloses a device for welding using a device, an insulating means body and a method for producing said device comprising: a support structure (Fig. 1, below the outer plate 7) configured to provide support for one or more orbital welding components (Fig. 1a); an orbital wed head body (1, Fig. 1) attached to the support structure, the orbital weld head body (1) comprising a thermal conductive material, the orbital weld head body including: at least one cooling bar (4, Fig. 1b and 2a-2b) that spans at least a portion of the length of the orbital weld head body (1), the cooling bar including one or more internal cooling channels (9, Fig. 1b-1c and 2a-2b) to route coolant through the cooling bar (4) of the orbital weld head body (1); and at least one pressurize fluid input line (9, Fig. 1a and 2a-2b) that attaches to the internal cooling channels (9) of the cooling bar (4) and conducts a fluid coolant to the internal cooling channels (9) of the cooling bar (4) (Fig. 1a-b; 2a-2b; Par. 28-35).
Regarding claim 2, Kunze discloses the internal cooling channel (9) extends up at a first side of the cooling bar (4) and follows down opposite, second side of the cooling bar (Fig. 1c and 2a-2b)
Regarding claim 3, Kunze discloses a removable cassette (7) that is detachably connected to the support structure (below outer plate 7) (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 4, Kunze discloses the removable cassette (7) includes an orbital weld head (6) configured to orbitally weld two pieces of material together (Fig. 1a; Abstract).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kunze discloses a second cooling bar (back 4) that spans at least a portion of the length of the orbital weld head body (1), the second cooling bar (back 4) including one or more internal cooling channels (9) to route coolant through the second cooling bar of the orbital weld head body; a second pressurize fluid input (9) that attaches to the internal cooling channels of the second cooling bar and conducts a fluid coolant to the internal cooling channels (9) of the second cooling bar (Fig. 1a-b; 2a-2b; Par. 28-35).
Regarding claim 8, Kunze discloses the cooling bar and the second cooling bar (front and back 4) are secured to the support structure (Fig. 1, below the outer plate 7) with a plurality of different fastening mechanism (front and back 4) (Fig. 1a-1b and 2a-2b).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Kunze discloses an orbital weld head (6) is positioned between the cooling bar and the second cooling bar (4) (Fig. 1a-1b and 2a-2b).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Kunze discloses the orbital weld head (6), the cooling bar, and the second cooling bar (front and back 4) are covered by structural plates (7) (Fig. 1a-1b and 2a-2b).
Regarding claim 12, Kunze discloses the thermal conductivity of the orbital weld head body (Fig. 1a) exceeds a minimum thermal conductivity threshold value.
Regarding claim 17, Kunze discloses the cooling bar and the second cooling bar (front and back 4) are both part of a removable cassette (7) that is detachably attached to the support structure (Fig. 1, below the outer plate 7) Fig. 1a-1b and 2a-2b).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze (US Pub. 2022/0080536) in view of Wolf et al. (US Pub. 2006/0157536) (new cited).
Regarding claim 5, Kunze discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the orbital weld head (6) configured to orbitally weld two pieces of material together (Fig. 1a; Abstract) except the two or more pieces of material that are to be orbitally welded together are formed from copper. Wolf et al. discloses the orbital weld head (fixture 10 with welding head assembly 5) configured to orbitally weld two pieces (60, 60’) of material together are formed from copper (Fig. 1A-1B; Abstract; Par. 25-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Kune, the two or more pieces of material that are to be orbitally welded together are formed from copper, as taught by Wolf et al., for the purpose of suitable to the user application to weld the two cooper tube together since it is the intended use.
Regarding claim 16, Kunze discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the orbital weld head (6) configured to orbitally weld two pieces of material together (Fig. 1a; Abstract) except the orbital weld head is configured to orbitally weld copper using at least 100 amps. Wolf et al. discloses the orbital weld head (fixture 10 with welding head assembly 5) is configured to orbitally weld copper (60, 60’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Kune, the two or more pieces of material that are to be orbitally welded together are formed from copper, as taught by Wolf et al., for the purpose of suitable to the user application to weld the two cooper tube together since it is the intended use. With respect of the limitation “using at least 100 amps”, Wolf et al. discloses the fixture capable of welding 60 of different sizes (Par. 33). In this case, Kunze in view of Wolf teaches the orbital welding the copper tube (60, 60’) compared to using of at least 100 amps, and having a specific power using of at least 100 amps is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the power of using of at least 100 amps is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case using of at least 100 amps to control heat of the two copper tube in order to maintain the heated temperature of the work piece, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze (US Pub. 2022/0080536) in view of Miao et al. (CN 219053311) (new cited).
Regarding claim 7, Kunze discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including the pressurized fluid input line (9 of the front cooling bar 4) and the second pressurized fluid line (9 of the back cooling bar 4), the fluid coolant provides to both of the internal cooling channels (9) of the cooling bar (front 4) and the internal cooling channels of the second cooling bar (back 4) (Fig. 1a-1b and 2a-2b) except a fluid diverter connected to the pressurized fluid input line. Miao et al. discloses a diverter (Fig. 4 below) connected to the fluid input line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Kune, a fluid diverter connected to the pressurized fluid input line, as taught by Miao et al., for the purpose of splitting the cooling water to cool the heat exchanger.
PNG
media_image1.png
560
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze (US Pub. 2022/0080536) in view of Miller (US Pub. 2014/0262155) (new cited).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Kunze discloses substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above except the orbital weld head includes at least one insulative layer formed from a thermally insulating material. Miller discloses the orbital weld head includes at least one insulative layer (115) formed from a thermally insulating material (Fig. 1 and 4; Par. 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize in Kune, the orbital weld head includes at least one insulative layer formed from a thermally insulating material, as taught by Miller, for the purpose of providing an insulating layer for thermally isolate the coolant line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761