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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claim 1, “first drive component” and “second drive component” have not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recited structural modifier “drive”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, line 3, the examiner suggests --is adapted to provide-- to improve the grammar.
Regarding claim 3, line 2, the examiner suggests --are each made-- and deleting “, respectively” to improve the grammar. While the examiner’s suggestion has the same meaning as the current claim language, --each-- is considered more appropriate than “respectively here”.
Regarding claim 3, lines 3-4, as above, the examiner suggests --are each made-- and deleting “, respectively” to improve the grammar.
Regarding claim 3, line 5, the examiner suggests --are each made-- to improve the grammar.
Regarding claim 3, lines 5-6, the examiner suggests --selected from the group [[:]] consisting of PEEK [[,]] and PTFE.-- to improve the grammar.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyborg (WO 92/14600 A1) in view of either one of Casey (US 2651350) or Nakamura (US 2010/0101184 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nyborg teaches a welding apparatus (Abstract; Figure 5; page 18, lines 7-19) comprising a first heating stack 3, wherein a first heating layer 9 is electrically connected to a first electronic control circuit (Figure 2) and is located between a first cover layer 8 and a first electric insulator 7, which first electric insulator is mounted on a first ledge 21; and a second heating stack 3’, wherein a second heating layer 9’ is electrically connected to a second electronic control circuit (Figure 2) and is located between a second cover layer 8’ and a second electric insulator 7’, which second electric insulator is mounted on a second ledge 22,wherein a first welding surface of the first cover layer is arranged opposite to a second welding surface of the second cover layer (Figure 5), wherein the welding apparatus is adapted to provide a relative movement between the first heating stack and the second heating stack (page 9, lines 14-17), and wherein the first electronic control circuit is adapted to provide electric energy to the first heating layer (page 16, line 34 to page 17, line 15) and wherein the second electronic control circuit is adapted to detect an electric resistance and/or an electric impedance of the second heating layer (page 17, lines 15-25; page 8, lines 8-14; page 12, lines 25-35; page 13, lines 24-28; page 5, lines 20-33). In particular, each heating stack may be connected to a respective control circuit or circuits which provides electrical energy to the respective heating layer and detects an electric resistance of the respective heating layer (page 8, lines 8-14; Figure 2; page 17, lines 15-25; page 11, lines 1-7).
Nyborg differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Nyborg does not recite the first heating stack is coupled to a first drive component of a drive and the second heating stack is coupled to a second drive component of the drive, wherein the drive is adapted to provide a relative movement between the first heating stack and the second heating stack.
(i) As noted above, Nyborg teaches the welding apparatus is adapted to provide relative movement between the heating stacks, naturally so they can be pressed together (page 5, lines 20-22; page 9, lines 14-19; page 11, lines 11-21; page 16, lines 12-17; claim 3). However, Nyborg does not recite details of the structure for performing such movement. In related heat sealing art, Casey suggests a first sealing jaw is coupled to a first drive component 22 of a drive and a second sealing jaw is coupled to a second drive component 21 of the drive (Figure 3), wherein the drive is adapted to provide a relative movement between the first and second sealing jaws for heat sealing (column 2, line 37 to column 3, line 7). Alternatively, Nakamura suggests a first sealing member is coupled to a first drive component 35 of a drive and a second sealing member is coupled to a second drive component 36 of the drive (Figure 3), wherein the drive is adapted to provide a relative movement between the first and second sealing members for heat sealing (Figures 2-3, paragraphs 89-106). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Nyborg because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide known suitable drive structure for performing the above noted relative movement between the heating stacks of Nyborg, as suggested by either one of Casey or Nakamura.
Claim 2 is satisfied for the reasons provided above. In particular, each heating stack may be connected to a respective control circuit or circuits which provides electrical energy to the respective heating layer and detects an electric resistance of the respective heating layer (page 8, lines 8-14; Figure 2; page 17, lines 15-25; page 11, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Nyborg suggests the first and second ledges may be made from aluminum (page 16, lines 3-15), the ledges may have cooling channels (page 16, lines 30-33), or the cover layers may comprise the heat resistant non-adhesive material Teflon, which is a commercially available PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene) material (page 16, lines 17-23).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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 C. Tucker can be reached at (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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights