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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18, it is unclear if the clamping device of this claim is the same as the clamping device of claim 1 or in addition as the specification does not describe two clamps acting on the same slide. As the scope of this claim cannot be determined, no art rejection can be made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Soda(JP 2004-276255) in view of Klinstein et al.(US Publication 2014/0367020)
Soda discloses a welding apparatus comprising an ultrasonic welder comprising a stand(24), a welding unit with a sonotrode(21), a set slide connected to the stand which can be moved vertically(shaft 23B), a processing slide connected to the welding unit and thus to the set slide(26A), a set motor for the set slide(13), and a processing motor for the processing slide(23A) which moves the welder vertically.([0012]-[0017],Figure 1) Soda does not disclose a clamp which clamps the sonotrode so it does not move when it is clamped and is capable of movement when unclamped. Klinstein et al. teaches an ultrasonic welding device with a brake which locks it in place so the welder does not move when the power is turned off[0046]. A brake presses against a surface to prevent movement by definition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have a brake(clamp) in the welder of Soda to keep the welder in place when the power is turned off as taught by Klinstein et al. One in the art would appreciate that a brake that prevents movement when clamped would allow movement when not clamped against the surface since that is how brakes work.
Regarding claim 2, Soda discloses a base the workpiece is placed on(anvil) and moving the device towards the workpiece.(Figure 1, [0012])
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Soda shows the setting slide only moves vertical on the shaft(12) which acts as a linear guide.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Soda teaches the processing motor is an air cylinder, which is pneumatic.
Regarding claim 10, Soda discloses moving the setting slide until the sonotrode is in contact with the workpiece and moving it downward with the processing slide to the end of the work.[0019]
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Matsuda et al.(JP 2013-63521) in view of Klinstein et al.
Matsuda et al. discloses a welding apparatus comprising an ultrasonic welder comprising a stand(10), a welding unit with a sonotrode(44), a set slide connected to the stand which can be moved vertically(20), a processing slide(40) connected to the welding unit and thus to the set slide, a set motor for the set slide(13), and a processing motor(28) for the processing slide which moves the welder vertically.(machine translation, Figure 1) Matsuda et al . does not disclose a clamp which clamps the sonotrode so it does not move when it is clamped and is capable of movement when unclamped. Klinstein et al. teaches an ultrasonic welding device with a brake which locks it in place so the welder does not move when the power is turned off[0046]. A brake presses against a surface to prevent movement by definition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have a brake(clamp) in the welder of Soda to keep the welder in place when the power is turned off as taught by Klinstein et al. One in the art would appreciate that a brake that prevents movement when clamped would allow movement when not clamped against the surface since that is how brakes work.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuda et al discloses a base the workpiece is placed on(11) and moving the device towards the workpiece.(Figure 1, machine translation
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Matsuda et al. shows the setting slide only moves vertically on the shaft(20) which acts as a linear guide.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Matsuda et al. teaches the processing motor is an air cylinder, which is pneumatic.
Regarding claim 5 and 17, Matsuda et a. detects the amount of the horn descends into the workpiece when it melts. This is the displacement, and one in the art would understand that detects the amount would require a sensor to detect it.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda et al. discloses a force sensor which measures a force applied to the workpiece.(Abstract)
Regarding claim 8, Matsuda et al .discloses a controller which stores data for a plurality of start and end points, i.e. movement profiles.(machine translation)
Regarding claim 9, a spring is located between the stand and the welder which acts in the Z direction.(32b)
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Matsuda et al. discloses moving the setting slide until the sonotrode is in contact with the workpiece and moving it downward with the processing slide to the end of the work.(machine translation) Matsuda et al. discloses the slides are spring mounted(32A-32c)
Regarding claim 13, ultrasonic welding is vibrational welding. Thus the processing slide would move upward due to the
Regarding claim 14, the welding force is detected and the bonding begins when the desired welding force is met.(machine translation)
Regarding claim 15, a spring is provided between the stand and the welding unit which moves it vertically and the welding presses against the spring force and it reaches a set welding force.(machine translation)
Claim(s) 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al. and Klinstein as applied to claims 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Copperthite et al.(WO2020/112635).
The references cited above do not disclose pressing the sonotrode further after contact with the workpiece so that the workpiece presses back. Copperthite et al. discloses bringing the sonotrode into contact with the workpiece and then pressing it further into the workpiece(Figures 6A-6D) to minimize impact forces during welding.[0023] This would cause the workpiece to press back pushing the sonotrode up. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the device and method of Matsuda et al and Klinstein to press the sonotrode further into the workpiece after contact, causing it to push back as taught by Copperthite et al. since this would minimize impact forces during welding.[0023]
Regarding claim 20, Copperthite et al. discloses compressing the spring after contact until the predetermined amount of force is reached, at which point bonding can begin.[0047] A spring is located between the stand and the processing slide and a processing slide and the set slide.(Figure 1 and 2)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Matsuda et al. does not disclose a clamp, Klinstein et al. does.
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 BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights