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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because they use of shading in Figures 3, 4, and 5 only obscures the claimed elements. Specifically, the use of shading in the figures reduces legibility of the claimed elements in the drawing and fails to provide aid in understanding the invention. See 37 CFR 1.84(m).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 37 CFR 1.84(p) because elements 2, 3, and 4 of Fig. 1; elements 1, 2, 3,4 of Fig 2 fail to give satisfactory reproduction characteristics because the characters are not sufficiently dense or dark enough to permit adequate reproduction . Additionally elements in figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 5A appear to utilize non-uniform fonts and font sizes throughout the drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. See 37 CFR 1.84(l). Regarding Numbers, Letters, and reference characters, 37 CFR 1.84(p) requires that (1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted; (2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas; and (3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See 37 CFR 1.84(l)
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because element 4.2 in Figures 2, 3, and 3A lacks a lead line or underline. Elements 1 and 4 in Figures 3 and 3A, and then Elements 2 and 4 in Figures 4 and 4A, have lead lines that cross each other. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because the use of a lead line for Element 5 of Fig 5 and 5a and placement of Element 5 places the element on another claimed surface. See 37 CFR 1.84(q).
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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 13 and 15 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 13
Claim 13 recites the limitation "busbars are connected to the plates" in lines 1 and 2 of Claim 13. As currently written, only Claim 11 introduces lines running to the electrodes that are designed as plates, and Claim 13 currently depends on Claim 9 instead of Claim 11. As Claim 13 lacks any introduction of a plate into the claim language, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 15 recites the broad recitation "one to several", and the claim also recites "preferably three" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ritter (WO-2005092555-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ritter teaches a welding device (welding unit of a welding machine [0001], [0005]) for wire meshes (welding machine producing wire mesh mats [0001]) which, where the welding machine (1) has multiple electrodes (upper and lower electrodes 4, 7; [0006], [0010]) connected to transformers (transformers 22, 22’, [0009], [0017]-[0018]) via current paths (current band 33, 43; [0010], [0011]), where two busbars (busbars 24, 26, 28a-d, 31a-d; [0009]-[0011], [0018]) are connected between the current paths and transformers ([0010]-[0011], [0017]),where the busbars extend on one side of the plane substantially over the width of the wire mesh mat (Fig 1, [0010]) and are connected to an insulator forming a sandwich (insulating pieces 29, 29’; [0009]-[0010]; insulation 48, [0011]), and where the lead lines are located on either side of the welding plane (grid production plane (x), welding line (s)).
Regarding Claim 16, Ritter teaches a welding device (welding unit of a welding machine [0001], [0005]) which itself meets the claimed requirements of a welding machine.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Schmidt (US5053597A).
Regarding Claim 10, Ritter teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claims that the busbars have a bridge arranged alternately along their extension and are connected between the transformers and the busbars for energy input.
Schmidt teaches (Figs 1-6) a method and system for producing welded lattice bodies. Schmidt teaches the welded grid body with busbars (47) and welding transformers (49) connected via conduction bands (48) ([Col 8, lines 20-28]). The conduction bands allow the pivoting movement of the welding device (13a-b) ([Col 8, lines 20-28]).
In this case, Ritter teaches the welding device that uses electrodes, busbars, and transformers, to make a wire mesh, and Schmidt teaches the inclusion of a bridge that contacts between the transformer and the busbar for energy conduction. Schmidt does not teach that the bridges are arranged alternately along the extension of the busbar. However, under MPEP 2144 VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the wire mesh welding device disclosed by Ritter in view of Schmidt, such that a welding device has a conductive band bridges that connect the transformers to the busbars for energy conduction, and that the conductive bridges are arranged alternately along the busbar because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new of unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C]. Applicant has not disclosed that arranging conductive band bridges provides any unexpected advantage over the arrangement as taught in Schmidt. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the conductive band bridge connecting the transformers and busbars can be arranged in many different ways without impacting its energy conducting function. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed alternating conduction bridge arrangement to work equally as well as the conductive band bridge layout disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Hubert (WO-2019144174-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ritter teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the current lines going to the electrodes are designed as plates.
Regarding Claim 14, Ritter teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the electrodes are combined in multiple assemblies of at least two opposing electrodes electrically connected to each other.
Regarding Claim 15, Ritter teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that assembly has a pair or more of electrodes.
Hubert teaches (Figs 1-3) a resistance welding device (1) and method for producing a wire netting. Hubert teaches that the welding head (7) has its own transformer (24) ([0057]). The contact electrode (18) and first welding electrode (8) are coupled to the transformer (24) by means of first and second flexible current bridges (25, 26) ([0058]-[0059]). The flexible current bridges can consist of several individual plates made of a copper materials, and have the ability to transmit high current necessary for resistance welding ([0058]-[0059]). Hubert also teaches that the electrodes (8, 18, 10) and contact element (20) are spaced apart from each other, and brought together to weld together longitudinal and cross bars ([0065]-[0068]). Hubert further teaches that the resistance welding device can have several welding heads (7, 9) connected together as part of a single resistance welding device (Fig 1, [0047]-[0048]).
In this case, Ritter teaches the welding device that uses electrodes, busbars, and transformers, to make wire mesh, and Hubert teaches the current lines being designed as plates as well as having a welding device that is made up of several welding heads and corresponding electrode pairs. Ritter, Hubert and the instant application are analogous because all the inventions device ways of welding wire mesh.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include current carrying lines designed as plates, multiple assemblies comprising pairs of opposing electrodes as taught by Hubert, with the wire mesh device taught by Ritter, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, with no change in the respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter in view of Widmer (EP-1426132-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ritter teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the transformers are medium-frequency transformers.
Widmer teaches (Figs 1-4) a grid welding machine. Widmer teaches that the welding electrodes (1.1-1.6) are connected to DC sources (3.1, 3.2) which typically include transformers and rectifiers ([0027]). Widmer further teaches that the DC source is designed as medium frequency DC source, allowing for low harmonic distortion and disappearance of phase boundaries for the current source, providing for improved adjustability of the DC current source ([0016]).
In this case, Ritter teaches the welding device that uses electrodes, busbars, and transformers, to make wire mesh, and Widmer teaches the medium-frequency transformer that improves adjustability of the DC current source. Ritter and Widmer are analogous to the instant application because all the inventions teach grid welding machines.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include medium frequency transformers as taught by Widmer to the welding device taught by Ritter, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter and Hubert in view of Scherr (DE-4446065-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Ritter teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the busbars are connected to the plates via elastic
Scherr teaches (Figs 1-3) a mesh welding machine for producing grids ([0001]). The welding head (1) supplies current for the lower electrode holder (5) through busbars (10, 11) to a connecting piece (13), as well a flexible current band (15), where the busbars, connecting piece, and current band are made up of electrically conductive materials such as copper or copper alloys.
In this case Ritter teaches the wire mesh welding device with busbars, transformers, and electrodes to create a wire mesh; Hubert teaches the current paths designed as plates, and an assembly of welding heads that can move the heads towards and away from the welding piece; and Scherr teaches the flexible and elastic current path made up of copper or a copper alloy. Ritter, Hubert, Scherr, and the instant application are analogous because all the inventions teach welding devices.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include flexible and elastic current paths made up of copper or copper alloys as taught by Scherr, with the current plates and movable electrodes taught by Hubert and the wire mesh welding device taught by Ritter, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gott (EP-0150704-A1) teaches a grid welding machine that uses a electrical resistance method to weld wire arrays together. Gott further teaches that rows of electrodes (1, 2) are arranged at intervals along beams (3, 4) over the width of the machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights