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
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, 6-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duart et al. (ES-2926072A1) (hereafter Duart) in view of Walker et al. (US2003/0150347A1) (hereafter Walker).
With respect to claim 1, Duart teaches an ignition strip (electrode 1) for exothermic welding, the ignition strip comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) that includes: a first contact (the end portion of the conductive layer 3 that sticks outside the mold-crucible and is contacted by the energy source); a second contact (the end portion of the conductive layer 4 that sticks outside the mold-crucible and is contacted by the energy source); a dielectric layer (2) with an aperture (11); a first conductive layer (3) defining a first trace between the first contact and the aperture along a first side of the dielectric layer; and a second conductive layer (4) defining a second trace between the second contact and the aperture along a second side of the dielectric layer; the aperture defining an insulating gap (potential difference) between the first trace and the second trace to cause a spark for ignition of welding material upon application of a breakdown voltage across the first and second contacts (figures; and machine translation). Note that Duart explicitly teaches that voltage can be raised to 1000V to generate sparks.
With respect to claim 1, Duart does not teach wherein the first conductive layer is metallic; and the PCB including bends in the first conductive layer, the dielectric layer, and the second conductive layer, to extend along at least two reference planes.
However, Walker teaches wherein the first conductive layer (50 or 51) is metallic (paragraphs 46 and 52); and the igniter (32) including bends (153 or 185/186 or bowed portion 189 or twist 124/133) in the first conductive layer, the dielectric layer, and the second conductive layer, to extend along at least two reference planes (figures 14-16 and 20; and paragraphs 13, 61, 66-67, 70, and 74).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bend and/or form the igniter of Durat in the configuration as taught by Walker for shipping purposes and/or in order to ensure the correct placement or positioning of the igniter for ignition.
With respect to claim 6, Duart teaches wherein the breakdown voltage is approximately 120V or more (machine translation).
With respect to claim 7, Duart teaches wherein the PCB further includes an outer edge, wherein the PCB is configured to provide the spark as a result of a current traveling along the outer edge, between the first trace and the second trace (figures 1-5; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 8, Duart teaches an exothermic welding device comprising: a weld container (mold-crucible) defining an internal volume that includes a main charge of welding material (6) (figures; and machine translation); a cover (lid 32) that closes the internal volume to retain the main charge of welding material (figures; and machine translation); and an igniter (electrode 1) that includes a printed circuit board (PCB) that defines an insulating gap (potential difference) between a first trace (3) and a second trace (4) to provide a spark for ignition of the main charge of welding material upon application of a breakdown voltage across the insulating gap, the PCB having the first end protrude outside of the weld container for application of the breakdown voltage (figures; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 8, Duart does not teach the first trace is defined by a metallic conductive layer; and the PCB including a bend between the first end of the PCB and a second end of the PCB.
However, Walker teaches wherein the first trace (50 or 51) is metallic (paragraphs 46 and 52); and the igniter (32) including a bend (153 or 185/186 or bowed portion 189 or twist 124/133) between the first end of the igniter and a second end of the igniter (figures 14-16 and 20; and paragraphs 13, 61, 66-67, 70, and 74).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bend and/or form the igniter of Durat in the configuration as taught by Walker for shipping purposes and/or in order to ensure the correct placement or positioning of the igniter for ignition.
With respect to claim 9, Duart teaches wherein, at the insulating gap, the igniter is in contact with the main charge of welding material (6) or an ignition charge (7) of welding material (figures; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 10, Walker teaches wherein the bend (twist 124/133) is within the internal volume to orient the insulating gap (62/66) within the main charge of welding material (114) (figures 14-15; and paragraph 64-67).
With respect to claim 11, Duart teaches wherein the igniter is in contact with the ignition charge (7) and the ignition charge does not include starting material (broadest reasonable interpretation) (figures; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 12, Duart teaches a capacitor configured to apply a charge to the igniter to cause application of the breakdown voltage across the insulating gap (machine translation).
With respect to claims 13 and 19, Duart teaches a capacitive discharge to the first contact to cause current to pass from the first trace to the second trace across the air gap (figures; and machine translation), but is silent with respect to the discharge direction. However, since Duart possesses the claimed structure, it is the examiner’s position that the insulating gap of Duart is intrinsically arranged to cause discharge over an outer edge of the PCB upon application of the breakdown voltage. When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP § 2112- 2112.02. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the current pass over the outer edge of the electrode of Duart in order to increase the surface area of the discharge and form a larger initial ignition front.
With respect to claim 14, Duart teaches a method of welding conductive components together, the method comprising: providing an igniter (electrode 1) that includes a printed circuit board (PCB) that defines a dielectric layer (2) and an air gap (potential difference) between the first trace (3) and a second trace (4) (conductive layers) (figures; and machine translation); aligning a weld container (mold-crucible) for a welding operation, with a first end of the igniter extending into the weld container and the weld container including a charge of welding material (6) (figures; and machine translation); applying a breakdown voltage across the air gap, via the first and second traces, to provide a spark that ignites the charge of welding material (figures; and machine translation). Note that Duart explicitly teaches that voltage can be raised to 1000V to generate sparks.
With respect to claim 14, Duart does not explicitly teach that the PCB is bent to extend along two reference planes; and includes a first conductive layer that is metallic and defines a first trace.
However, Walker teaches a first conductive layer (50 or 51) that is metallic and defines a first trace (paragraphs 46 and 52); and the igniter (32) is bent (153 or 185/186 or bowed portion 189 or twist 124/133) to extend along two reference planes (figures 14-16 and 20; and paragraphs 13, 61, 66-67, 70, and 74).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bend and/or form the igniter of Durat in the configuration as taught by Walker for shipping purposes and/or in order to ensure the correct placement or positioning of the igniter for ignition.
With respect to claim 15, Duart teaches wherein the breakdown voltage is approximately 120V or more (machine translation).
With respect to claim 16, Duart teaches wherein the weld container (mold-crucible or capsule 5) is a sealed weld container (figures 4-5 and the machine translation).
With respect to claim 17, Duart teaches wherein the igniter includes a first contact (the end portion of the conductive layer (3) that sticks outside the mold-crucible and is contacted by the energy source) in electrical communication with the first layer, a second contact (the end portion of the conductive layer (4) that sticks outside the mold-crucible and is contacted by the energy source), and a second conductive layer (4) in electrical communication with the second contact and separated from the first conductive layer by the air gap (figures; and machine translation).
With respect to claim 20, Walker teaches applying the breakdown voltage across the first and second contacts (the end portions of the conductive layers that are contacted by the energy source) with the igniter (32) extending along a different reference plane at the first and second contacts than at the air gap (62/66) (figures 1, 14-15, and 20; and paragraphs 45 and 68).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durat and Walker as applied to claims 1, 14, and 17 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 7,834,295B2) (hereafter Sharma).
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Duart and Walker do not explicitly teach wherein the first conductive layer includes aluminum.
However, Sharma teaches that the conductors may comprise different materials and the conductors may comprise a metal selected from the group of copper and aluminum, and combination thereof (column 2, lines 29-30; and column 8, lines 6-12).
At the time of filing the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the conductor materials of Sharma on the collective igniter of Duart and Walker in order to form an igniter with the desired electrical characteristics such as resistance.
With respect to claim 5, Walker teaches wherein the second conductive layer includes copper (paragraph 52). Also note that Sharma teaches that the second conductive layer includes copper (column 2, lines 29-30; and column 8, lines 6-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-20 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. It should be noted that the instant application states that:
In particular, the ignition strip 104 may include a printed circuit board (PCB) - e.g., be formed from a PCB. In some examples, the PCB is manufactured using materials, including aluminum, FR-4, polypropylene, or copper, according to generally known processes. Various other materials can be used, however, according to known practices for PCB manufacturing.
Accordingly, in light of the instant specification and in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation the igniter of Sharma constitutes a PCB.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735