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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-19 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 12-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Invention II (claims 12-19) is directed a process, and invention I (claims 1, 3-5, 7-11) is directed to an apparatus. In the instant case, the apparatus as claimed can be used in another and materially different process, such as one wherein a water or soapy aqueous solution is not the fluid being applied, but is a different fluid such as an alcohol, or another organic solvent, among others. Thus, the two inventions are distinct
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 12-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 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(s) is/are: holder in claim 1, and rolling/pushing tool in claim 3.
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. The holder is interpreted as a stable metal or plastic component (13) (instant specification [0040]), and the rolling/pushing tool is interpreted as a roller as in instant figure 3.
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 § 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.
Claims 2-3 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the components" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the parts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vichniakov (U.S PG Pub 20220134675A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vichniakov discloses a system and method for welding two thermoplastic workpieces (plastic components) (Abstract). Vichniakov discloses welding unit (8) (sonotrode (52)) [0042] that is guided along a weld seam (fastening portion and joining zone [0044]) and is held by a holder (support 10 & holding unit 42) [0043] and wherein the sonotrode has a head (14) [0042]. Vichniakov also discloses a cooling unit that includes a nozzle (pipeline strand 32) which sprays (Figure 2) cooling fluid [0045-0046] such as water [0015] onto the welding seam [0046-0047]. Vichniakov also discloses a reservoir or tank (28) for the cooling liquid that is connected to the nozzle [0046]. Further, Vichniakov discloses the welding tool being guided along the movement path of the joining zone and that the cooling liquid is used to quickly and efficiently cool the joining zone and weld seam [0047]. Vichniakov also discloses that the support holds the nozzle and that it is mounted at an acute angle to the sonotrode (Figure 2). Vichniakov also discloses both the spray nozzle and the welding horn to be guided over the workpieces (Figure 2; [0046-0047] & [0021]).
Further, it is noted that making a structure integral/separable (nozzle fixed to holder) or movable or adjustable and/or rearranging a structural part (i.e. angle at which nozzle is mounted and where the nozzle is fixed) are all held to be obvious and a matter of ordinary skill, in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 V (A-D) & 2144.04 VI (C)).
Regarding claim 4, Vichniakov does not specifically disclose a shape of the welding horn, however, from the figures it can be seen that the welding head (14) has a flat or planar shape. However, a change is shape is held to be obvious and a matter of ordinary skill when it does no more than yield predictable results (i.e. serving to weld workpieces) (MPEP 2144.04 IV (B)).
Regarding claims 5 & 7, Vichniakov has disclosed the cooling liquid being applied over the workpieces in the region of the weld seam and that the cooling liquid wets the workpiece surfaces, and further as can be seen from figure 2 of Vichniakov, the pipeline strand (32) acts as a nozzle to apply or spray the cooling liquid i.e. forming a jet/spray/mist [0045-0046]. Further Vichniakov discloses that the cooling liquid evaporates completely during the welding process [0015 & 0033 & 0052].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vichniakov (U.S PG Pub 20220134675A1) and Park (KR20220117354A - see machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 3, Vichniakov has not explicitly disclosed a rolling/pushing tool that follows the welding horn and presses/compresses the workpieces, however, such a tool is known from Park.
Park, drawn also to the art of an ultrasonic welding machine and cooling unit [0001-0002], discloses a welding horn and a roll (300) which follows the welding horn and leads to an integral formation of the welding target (200) (Figure 3; [0024] & [0037]). Park also discloses a cooling unit (500).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the machine of Vichniakov, with the welding machine having a roll, as disclosed by Park, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to be able to perform fusion and cutting operations and to integrally form the welding target at a fusion point [0037 & 0024].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not reasonably show or suggest the claimed holder with a first and second opening and wherein the sonotrode tool is received in the first opening and the spray nozzle is received in the second opening. Claims 9-11 are dependent on claim 8, but do not contain any allowable subject matter when viewed alone.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the holder of Vichniakov is not disclosed to be movable and to move along with the nozzle and sonotrode tool, and thus the apparatus of Vichniakov cannot obviate the instant claim 1.
The examiner disagrees. As noted above in the claim 1 rejection, Vichniakov discloses a holder that holds both the nozzle and the sonotrode tool (see claim 1 rejection above). Unit 42, also interpreted as a holder, at the very least is movable along with the sonotrode tool. Regarding the nozzle also being integral with the holder and further the holder being movable, it is noted that the act of making a structure integral or portable, as well as making a structure adjustable (movable) does not patentably distinguish the structure in the absence of new or unexpected results, and is held to be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan (see MPEP 2144.04 V (A), (B), & (D)).
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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights