CTNF 18/978,629 CTNF 92434 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: Guiding means…adapted for guiding the rods in claims 5-7 Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Le Monnier (US PG Pub 2013/0025793) . Regarding claim 1, Le Monnier teaches a transmission welding apparatus (Figs. 1-2, 5-6, and 9-10) for welding thermoplastic resin material parts (abstract), comprising: at least one heat source emitting thermal radiation (laser die 1 with laser diode array 2 per Figs. 1-2 and paras. 0072-0073, 0034, and 0114); and at least one pressure device (including various components as mapped below) adapted to apply a welding pressure on the material parts (paras. 0086, 0090), comprising: at least one pressure generator for supplying a pressure force (springs 6 in Fig. 5 and paras. 0089-0090); at least one pressure plate (plurality of plates 4a in Figs. 5-6 and paras. 0089 and 0114) which is permeable to the thermal radiation (para. 0114) and which is adapted to introduce the pressure force into the material parts (paras. 0089-0090 and 0114); and at least one pressure transmission system for transferring the pressure force to the pressure plate (system comprises plurality of supports 5 and bars 3a in Fig. 5 and paras. 0089-0090); wherein the at least one pressure plate is segmented into a plurality of plate segments which are arranged movable relative to one another (as shown in Figs. 5-6 and per paras. 0089-0090 and 0119). Regarding claim 3, Le Monnier teaches the plate segments are in operative connection with individual pressure generators (as shown in Fig. 5). Regarding claim 4, Le Monnier teaches the at least one pressure transmission system comprises rods (5 in Fig. 5) and at least one gliding element of a pressure generator housing (bars 3a glide up and down), wherein the rods extend between the at least one gliding element and the plate segments. Regarding claim 5, Le Monnier teaches guiding means are provided adapted for guiding the rods (springs 6 and die 1 are guiding means for rods 5 as shown in Fig. 5). Regarding claim 6, Le Monnier teaches the at least one heat source is positioned between the rods (laser die 1 as shown in Fig. 5)). Regarding claim 7, Le Monnier teaches the at least one heat source extends over all of the plate segments (as shown in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 8, Le Monnier teaches in a moving direction of the transmission welding apparatus, at least one thermal protection element is provided (sapphire bars 3a in Fig. 5 are thermal protection elements as described in para. 0115). Regarding claim 9, Le Monnier teaches a method for transmission welding thermoplastic resin material parts, using a transmission welding apparatus according to claim 1 (para. 0020). Regarding claim 10, Le Monnier teaches a welding joint is made sequentially by moving the transmission welding apparatus forward after a joint section is made (para. 0143) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Monnier, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hewing (EP 0556692A1) . Regarding claim 2, Le Monnier does not teach this feature. However, Hewing teaches a welding apparatus (forming belt press 30 Fig. 1) comprising plate segments (plate segments 33 making up pressing belt 31) that are rotationally linked with one another (as shown in Fig. 1). The courts have held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In view of Hewing’s teachings and/or KSR rationale B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Hewing’s rotationally linked plate segments 33 making up pressing belt 31 for Le Monnier’s plate segments 4a to predictably obtain suitable alternative means for introducing pressing force into the parts being welded. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to make this substitution to facilitate easier cleaning, maintenance, and replacement of the plate segments since they are rotationally linked into an easily handled and removed belt. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST. 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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. /JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 2 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 3 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 4 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 5 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 6 Art Unit: 1745 Application/Control Number: 18/978,629 Page 7 Art Unit: 1745
