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.
Claims 2-6 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 claims 2-6, the recitation of the claim renders the claim indefinite because the preamble of the claim is drawn to an apparatus and then the claim recites the steps a method of using the apparatus;
Therefore, the claims are unclear and indefinite; and the Applicant must amend claims 2-6 to clearly define the claims in terms of the Apparatus’s features.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (WO2020161998A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-2, Sato discloses a coiling machine (paragraphs 0001, paragraphs 0014-0048 and fig.1: (100)) comprising:
a laser heater (fig.2: (20)) configured to emit laser light to a wire (fig.2: (1)) formed into a helical shape, thereby heating a portion of the wire; and
a cutting unit (fig.2: (31)) configured to cut a site of the wire heated by irradiation with the laser light,
Regarding claims 1-2, Sato does not disclose wherein an output density of the laser light is greater than or equal to 10 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 100 W/mm2; and wherein the output density is greater than or equal to 31 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 74 W/mm2;
However, choosing the output density the laser light is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design and specific requirements of the coiling process such as:
Melting Speed: High density focuses intense heat into a tiny spot. The material melts or turns to gas fast.
Cut Quality: Correct density makes smooth edges. Bad density leaves rough burrs or burnt marks.
Material Type: Metals need high power density to cut. Softer items need lower density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an output density of the laser light as desired, including wherein an output density of the laser light is greater than or equal to 10 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 100 W/mm2; and wherein the output density is greater than or equal to 31 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 74 W/mm2; in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the coiling as desired.
Regarding claims 7-8, Sato discloses coil spring manufacturing method (paragraphs 0001, paragraphs 0014-0048 and fig.1: (100)) including:
emitting laser light (fig.2: (20)) to a wire formed into a helical shape (fig.2: (1)), thereby heating a portion of the wire; and
cutting (fig.2: (31)) a site of the wire heated by irradiation with the laser light,
Regarding claims 7-8, Sato does not disclose wherein an output density of the laser light is greater than or equal to 10 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 100 W/mm2; and wherein the output density is greater than or equal to 31 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 74 W/mm2;
However, choosing the output density the laser light is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design and specific requirements of the coiling process such as:
Melting Speed: High density focuses intense heat into a tiny spot. The material melts or turns to gas fast.
Cut Quality: Correct density makes smooth edges. Bad density leaves rough burrs or burnt marks.
Material Type: Metals need high power density to cut. Softer items need lower density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an output density of the laser light as desired, including wherein an output density of the laser light is greater than or equal to 10 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 100 W/mm2; and wherein the output density is greater than or equal to 31 W/mm2 and less than or equal to 74 W/mm2; in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the coiling as desired.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12, Sato does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12.
However, Sato is concerned about an irradiation area irradiated with the laser light on the surface of the wire; and the output of the laser (paragraphs 0034-0043 and 0048);
choosing the dimensions of the wire is known in art and a matter of routine design engineering design choice that depends on the general design and the required dimensions of the wire as desired; and
choosing the output density the laser light is very known in art and a matter of routine engineering design choice that depends on the general design and specific requirements of the heating and cutting process such as:
Melting Speed: High density focuses intense heat into a tiny spot. The material melts or turns to gas fast.
Cut Quality: Correct density makes smooth edges. Bad density leaves rough burrs or burnt marks.
Material Type: Metals need high power density to cut. Softer items need lower density.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the limitations of claim 3-4, 6, 9-10 and 12; in order to meet a specific requirement of the process of the coiling as desired.
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Sato discloses wherein the irradiation area has a shape which is elongated in a width direction of the wire (paragraph 0081).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights