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 .
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.
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) 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,464,171 (Ripplinger) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0358909 (Murillo et al.).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Ripplinger teaches: Claim 15 - a method of producing a reel comprising: interposing a first susceptor material (124 – Figure 16) between a first flange (14) and a first end of a core (31) of the reel; and applying a magnetic field (Column 16, Lines 27-50) to the first susceptor material (124) so as to excite the first susceptor material (124) and increase a temperature of the first susceptor material (124), forming a first bonded joint around the first susceptor (124) at which the first flange (14) is bonded to the first end of the core (31), (Figures 1-3 and 16); Claim 16 - wherein the interposing of the first susceptor material (124) includes inserting the first susceptor material (124) and the first end of the core (31) in an annular channel (at 105B/107B as seen in Figure 16) defined in the first flange (14), (Figures 1-3 and 16).
Ripplinger does not teach: applying pressure urging the core and the first flange together while applying the magnetic field (Claim 15). However, Murillo et al. teaches: Claim 15 – attaching two elements (20 and 22) to one another by placing a susceptor material (34) between the two elements (20 and 22), and applying a magnetic field (described in at least paragraph [0045]) to attach the two elements (20 and 22), and applying pressure urging the two elements (20 and 22) together while applying the magnetic field (described in at least paragraph [0055]), (Figures 1-5C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reel of Ripplinger to have applying pressure urging the core and the first flange together while applying the magnetic field (Claim 15) as taught by Murillo et al. for the purposes of providing a stronger connection between the first end of the core and the first flange.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-14 and 21 are allowed.
Claims 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is (303) 297-4258. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/JOSHUA E RODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642