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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. With Applicant’s explanation of the significance of reference character “A” in the response filed 05/19/2026, the Objection to the Drawings of the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
2. The Claim Objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn with the insistence that Applicant’s lexicography is desired in the Remarks filed 05/19/2026.
3. Applicant’s amendments of claims 17 and 18 overcome the 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are now allowable over the prior art.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are moot in light of new claim limitations not previously considered. These claim limitations are addressed in the prior art rejections below.
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.
5. Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitation "the parts staging stations" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret this phrase as “the parts staging and end heating stations” to be consistent with amendment limitation found in line 5.
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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claassen (DE 19832397; previously presented) in view of Schwaiger et al. (US 6,294,044; previously presented; hereafter known as Schwaiger).
Regarding claim 1, Claassen teaches of a device for facilitates welding of polymer quadrilateral frame structures (pg. 1 lines 7-10) generally seen in Figure 7 that has a parts conveyor (conveyor belt- 50) to deliver parts from a location remote from the variable size welder (pg.5 lines 3-4). As seen in Figure 7, Claassen’s device has spaced out carrier plates (carrier plates 62-65; pg. 8 lines 10-18); the carrier plates having end heaters one for each of the four sides (heater swords/blades; pg. 8 lines 7-11; this would be at the angled corners of profiles or parts 57-60). Four parts (profiles 57-60; pg. 7 lines 33-36) are shown in Figure 7 as being staged between adjacent carrier plates. Given that the parts are staged with heaters at their ends, each positioning of the parts wand corresponding support of adjacent carrier plates can be interpreted as parts staging and end heating stations. On the central part of the carrier plates are four corner clamping structures (clamping blocks 72-79; pg. 8 lines 1-5). Claassen further teaches four robotic parts movers configured to reach the parts conveyors and also to reach the parts staging and end heating stations (trolleys 111-114; pg. 8 line 29- pg. 9 line 6; see Figure 7). In reaching the parts staging stations, the four robotic parts movers are also configured to reach at least a portion of the four corner clamping structure, as the four corner clamping structures are on the parts staging and end heating stations.
Claassen does not teach of having at least two parts conveyors. This would constitute a duplication of parts, which MPEP 2114.04.VI.B teaches- “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced” In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the immediate case, if different parts are conveyed in a duplicate conveyor belt of Claassen, this would not greatly change the operation of Claassen and therefore would not produce a new or unexpected result. Consequentially, since this claim limitation would lack patentable weight, this claim limitation does not differentiate over Claassen and claim 1 is therefore obvious in view of Claassen.
In the case that Applicant disagrees with the Examiner on the “duplication of parts” supporting legal rationale, the prior art also teaches of at least two parts conveyors. Schwaiger teaches of three separate parts conveyors (conveying paths 18, 20, and 23; see Figure 2) in conjunction with turning devices that allows parts (profiles) to be advantageously placed in the correct orientation prior to welding (col. 3 line 62- col. 4 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the three separate parts conveyors of Schwaiger in the apparatus of Claassen for the advantage of correctly oriented parts prior to welding.
Regarding claim 3, Claassen further teaches that the centrally located four corner clamping structure are four moveable corner clamps (pg. 8 lines 2-3; see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, the four parts staging stations of Claassen have a specific position on which the parts are staged (pg. 8 lines 17-18). The end heating plates are in the corner with the clamping blocks (pg. 8 lines 7-8) and thus on each side of the variable size welder there are two end heating plates, one being in each corner/end of the side.
Regarding claim 6, the welding of Claassen is accomplished by heating the ends of each part with a heating plate (pg. 1 lines 12-14), which in the case of 4 parts this make 8 ends to be welded.
Regarding claim 8, the four corner clamping structure of Claassen in adjustable (pg. 8 lines 2-3). A specific maximum and minimum size in operation is a manner of operating of the device. MPEP 2114.II teaches- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since such a minimum and maximum selected sizes would simply be how the device functions, these claim limitations do not differentiate over the prior art of Claassen.
8. Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claassen and Schwaiger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greller (US 2021/0260835; previously presented).
Regarding claim 2, Claassen does not teach a finished frame removal robotic structure. Greller teaches the use of a finished frame removal robotic structure (overhead gantry system- 108) the advantage of so doing is the reduction in manufacturing floor space ([0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to add the finished frame removal robotic structure of Greller in the apparatus of Claassen for the advantage of reduced manufacturing floor space.
Regarding claim 7, in applying Greller as in claim 2, Greller’s finished frame removal robotic structure is an overhead gantry, which in the apparatus of Claassen would be at least partially above the four corner clamping structure and as seen in the lifting between Figures 3 and 4 the finished frames are lifted vertically in their transit to a remote location.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen and Schwaiger as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ramnauth et al. (US 2004/0099372; previously presented; hereafter known as Ramnauth).
Regarding claim 4, Claassen does not teach how the four corner clamps are movable. Ramnauth teaches of four corner clamps (welding units- 20) that are located on a first gantry and on a second gantry (guide rails- 26) and are shiftable linearly along lengths of the first gantry and the second gantry (“movable in the horizontal direction along suitable guide rails”) and the first gantry and the second gantry are shiftable relative to one another (via mounting rail 26a; [0037]-[0038]; see Figure 11). The advantage of so doing is that such a system is accommodating of window frames of different widths ([0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the gantry suggestion of Ramnauth in the apparatus of Claassen for the advantage of being accommodating of window frames of different widths.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art of record is Claassen. Claassen teaches of a device for facilitates welding of polymer quadrilateral frame structures (pg. 1 lines 7-10) generally seen in Figure 7 comprising a parts conveyor (conveyor belt- 50) to deliver parts from a location remote from the variable size welder (pg.5 lines 3-4), parts staging stations (space areas) where parts (profiles 57-60; pg. 7 lines 33-36) are staged on adjacent carrier plates (carrier plates 62-65; pg. 8 lines 10-18); the carrier plates having end heaters one each of the four sides (heater swords/blades; pg. 8 lines 7-11). On the central part of these carrier plates are four corner clamping structures (clamping blocks 72-79; pg. 8 lines 1-5). Claassen further teaches four robotic parts movers configured to reach the parts conveyors and also to reach the parts staging stations and end heaters (trolleys 111-114; pg. 8 line 29- pg. 9 line 6; see Figure 7). In reaching the parts staging stations, the four robotic part movers are also configured to reach at least a portion of the four corner clamping structure, as the four corner clamping structures are on the parts staging stations.
Claassen does not teach of having at least two parts conveyors.
Since the four parts staging stations and the four corner clamping structure are in the same position in Claassen, the apparatus of Claassen is unable and therefore does not teach or render obvious that the four robotic parts movers are configured to place parts onto the four parts staging stations and then transfer the parts to the four corner clamping structure.
11. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights