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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of specie B, figure 14 in the reply filed on 3/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the table automatically moves the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch (, and third brazing torch) upward and downward during a brazing operation must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11 and 20 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 11 is indefinite because it is unclear how the table automatically moves the brazing torches upward and downward. The carriage is positionable along the shuttle. The shuttle is movable along the table. Based on the figures, it appears that the table 106 moves vertically up and down during the brazing operation to adjust respective positions of the brazing torches along the tubes. Based on figure 1, it does not appear that the table 106 automatically moves torches that are on carriage 112. It appears that the table is moved relative to the torches to adjust the tubes. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear how the table automatically moves the brazing torches upward and downward. The carriage is positionable along the shuttle. The shuttle is movable along the table. Based on the figures, it appears that the table 106 moves vertically up and down during the brazing operation to adjust respective positions of the brazing torches along the tubes. Based on figure 1, it does not appear that the table 106 automatically moves torches that are on carriage 112. It appears that the table is moved relative to the torches to adjust the tubes. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 14-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grisoni et al. (FR2649343A1) in view of Song et al. (CN219274798U) and Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1).
Regarding claim 1, Grisoni discloses a brazing system, comprising: a table 8, a stand (what 8 and 5 are located on, figure 1); a shuttle 5, 10 movable along the table 8 in a second axial direction toward and away from an object (see description of figures 1-3), wherein the second axial direction is perpendicular to the first axial direction; a torch carriage 4 positionable along the shuttle; a first brazing torch 82 attached to the torch carriage (figures 1-2, see English translation for description of figures 1-2).
Grisoni does not specifically disclose that the table moveable along the stand in a first axial direction. However, Song discloses a joining apparatus with a stand 1, a shuttle 2, and a moveable table 13 located on the stand (figures 1-2, see English translation description of figures 1-2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a moveable table as taught in Song as it effectively improves the safety of feeding the workpieces (see English translation of figures 1-2).
Grisoni does not specifically disclose that the carriage is positionable in a third axial direction perpendicular to the first axial direction and the second axial direction. However, Song discloses a carriage 2 positionable in a third axial direction (along the top horizontal strut of shuttle 2) perpendicular to the first axial direction and the second axial direction (figures 1-2, see English translation of figures 1-2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a carriage positionable in a third axial direction to allow for freedom of the bond heads and easier access to the areas that need to be welded. Limiting movement would limit the ability to weld different workpieces.
Grisoni does not specifically disclose a second brazing torch attached to the torch carriage, wherein the table automatically moves back and forth in the first axial direction while the first and second brazed connections are made, to adjust respective positions of the first brazing torch along the first tube and the second brazing torch along the second tube during a brazing operation performed on the object. However, Song does disclose that it is know to have more than one bonding tool 3 on a shuttle 2 wherein the table automatically moves back and forth in the first axial direction to adjust positions of the torch during brazing (figure 1). Furthermore, Edenfield discloses that it is known to have a system with multiple brazing torches (paragraph 0007). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have two brazing torches as claimed because it allows for the brazing process to be performed quicker and more efficiently, which cuts down on production time and costs.
The limitation “having a first tube extending in the first axial direction and a second tube adjacent to the first tube and also extending in the first axial direction” is material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the brazing system (apparatus).
The limitation “configured for making a first brazed connection along the first tube” and “configured for making a second brazed connection along the second tube while the first brazed connection is made” and “while the first and second brazed connections are made, to adjust respective positions of the first brazing torch along the first tube and the second brazing torch along the second tube during a brazing operation performed on the object” is functional and does not further limit the structure of the apparatus. Since the prior art teaches the claimed structure, it is the Examiner’s position that it is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 2, the position of the torch carriage of Grisoni is capable of being manually adjustable.
Regarding claim 4, Grisoni discloses that the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch each have a plurality of flame outlets 119 (figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “a portion of the first brazing torch and a portion of the second brazing torch are located between the first tube and the second tube during the brazing operation” is dependent on the material worked upon and the method being performed. This limitation does not further limit the apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 6, Edenfield discloses a mass flow controller configured to control respective flows of gas to the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch during the brazing operation (paragraphs 0006, 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the object is a heat exchanger coil” is material worked upon and does not further limit the system/apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of being used on a heat exchanger coil.
Regarding claim 14, Grisoni discloses a brazing system, comprising: a stand (the bottom portion that 8 is located on); a table 8 supported by the stand; a shuttle 5, 10 movable along the table in a first direction; a torch carriage 4 positionable along the shuttle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a first brazing torch 82 attached to the torch carriage (figures 1-2, see English translation for description of figures 1-2).
Grisoni does not specifically disclose a second brazing torch attached to the torch carriage. However, Song discloses a joining apparatus with a stand 1, a shuttle 2, and a moveable table 13 located on the stand (figures 1-2, see English translation description of figures 1-2) and that it is known to have more than one bonding tool 3 on a shuttle 2 wherein the table automatically moves back and forth in the first axial direction to adjust positions of the torch during brazing (figure 1). Furthermore, Edenfield discloses that it is known to have a system with multiple brazing torches (paragraph 0007). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have two brazing torches as claimed because it allows for the brazing process to be performed quicker and more efficiently, which cuts down on production time and costs.
Grisoni does not disclose a mass flow controller. However, Edenfield discloses a mass flow controller for multiple brazing torches (paragraphs 0007, 0044, 0048-0049). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use mass flow controllers for the brazing torches as it allows the user to easily and efficiently control the flow of gas being supplied to the torches to ensure that a proper heat can be achieved during the bonding process. Since Edenfield discloses a mass flow controller, it is the Examiner’s position that Edenfield would be capable of controlling respective flows of gas to each of the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch, wherein the mass flow controller controls the respective flows of gas based on either a first heating profile for making a single brazed connection using only one of the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch, and a second heating profile for making two brazed connections simultaneously using both of the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch.
The limitation “configured for making a first brazed connection along a first tube and configured for making a second brazed connection along a second tube that is adjacent to the first tube” is functional and also dependent on the material worked upon and does not further limit the structure of the system/apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 15, the position of the torch carriage of Grisoni is capable of being manually adjustable.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the object is a heat exchanger coil” is material worked upon and does not further limit the system/apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of being used on a heat exchanger coil.
Regarding claim 18, Grisoni discloses that the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch each have a plurality of flame outlets 119 (figure 7).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a portion of the first brazing torch and a portion of the second brazing torch are located between the first tube and the second tube during the brazing operation” is dependent on the material worked upon and the method being performed. This limitation does not further limit the apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 20, Song discloses the table automatically moves the first brazing torch and the second brazing torch up and down (relatively). Therefore, Song is capable of performing the function during a brazing operation to adjust respective positions of the first brazing torch along the first tube and the second brazing torch along the second tube during a brazing operation.
Claim(s) 3, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grisoni et al. (FR2649343A1) in view of Song et al. (CN219274798U) and Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1) as applied to claim 1, 14 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (2021/0162530A1).
Regarding claims 3, 16, Grisoni does not specifically disclose a code scanner for identifying the object to be brazed by reading a code located on the object. However, Anderson discloses a heating apparatus for brazing that includes control circuitry with code readers and scanners used to identify an object to be heated (paragraphs 0003 0026). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a code scanner to help automate the system to ensure that the correct parameters are set for the brazing process. This would prevent any incomplete or damaged joints.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1) in view of Kanjiyou et al. (JP10272570A).
Regarding claim 8, Edenfield discloses a brazing system, comprising: a first brazing torch; a second brazing torch; a third brazing torch (paragraph 0044); and a mass flow controller configured to control respective flows of gas to each of the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch (paragraphs 0007, 0044, 0048-0049). Since Edenfield teaches the controlling the flows of the gas with a mass flow controller, Edenfield would be capable of controlling the respective flows of gas based on either a first heating profile for making a single brazed connection using two of the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch, and a second heating profile for making two brazed connections simultaneously using each of the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch.
Edenfield does not specifically disclose a torch carriage having an actuator system configured to rotate the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch simultaneously from a substantially vertical orientation to a substantially horizontal orientation. However, Kanjiyou discloses a torch carriage for torches with an actuator system (controller) to rotate and control each of the torches independently (figure 2, description of figure 2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a torch carriage and an actuator system in order to automate the system and to allow the torches to braze the workpieces at the same time to save on production time and costs.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1) in view of Kanjiyou et al. (JP10272570A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Song et al. (CN219274798U).
Regarding claim 9, Kanjiyou discloses a carriage 2, 3 that is positionable along a shuttle 1 in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, but does not specifically disclose a stand; a table supported by the stand; and a shuttle movable along the table in a first direction. However, Song discloses a joining apparatus with a stand 1, a shuttle 2 movable along the table in a first direction, a table 13 located on the stand, wherein the torch carriage is positionable along the shuttle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (figures 1-2, see English translation description of figures 1-2). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a moveable table as taught in Song because Song states that it effectively improves the safety of feeding the workpieces (see English translation of figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, the position of the torch carriage of Kanjiyou is capable of being manually adjustable.
Regarding claim 11, Song discloses that the table automatically moves the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch upward and downward (relatively speaking) during a brazing operation.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1) in view of Kanjiyou et al. (JP10272570A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (2021/0162530A1).
Regarding claim 12, Edenfield does not specifically disclose a code scanner for identifying the object to be brazed by reading a code located on the object. However, Anderson discloses a heating apparatus for brazing that includes control circuitry with code readers and scanners used to identify an object to be heated (paragraphs 0003 0026). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a code scanner to help automate the system to ensure that the correct parameters are set for the brazing process. This would prevent any incomplete or damaged joints.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1) in view of Kanjiyou et al. (JP10272570A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Grisoni et al. (FR2649343A1).
Regarding claim 13, Edenfield does not disclose that each of the first brazing torch, the second brazing torch, and the third brazing torch has a plurality of flame outlets. However, Grisoni discloses a braze torch with a plurality of flame outlets 119 (figure 7). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known brazing torch as taught by Grisoni because it allows two surfaces or areas to be heated at once. This would cut down on production time and costs.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grisoni et al. (FR2649343A1) in view of Edenfield et al. (20190160573A1).
Regarding claim 21, Grisoni discloses a brazing system, comprising: a stand (the bottom portion that 8 is located on); a table 8 supported by the stand; a shuttle 5, 10 movable along the table in a first direction; a torch carriage 4 positionable along the shuttle in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a first brazing torch 82 attached to the torch carriage (figures 1-2, see English translation for description of figures 1-2).
Grisoni does not specifically disclose a mass flow controller configured to control a flow of gas to the brazing torch, wherein the mass flow controller controls the flow of gas based on either a first heating profile for making a single brazed connection using only the brazing torch, and a second heating profile for making two brazed connections simultaneously using both of the brazing torch and a second brazing torch. However, Edenfield discloses a mass flow controller for multiple brazing torches (paragraphs 0007, 0044, 0048-0049). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use mass flow controllers for the brazing torches as it allows the user to easily and efficiently control the flow of gas being supplied to the torches to ensure that a proper heat can be achieved during the bonding process. Since Edenfield discloses a mass flow controller, it is the Examiner’s position that Edenfield would be capable of controlling a flow of gas to the brazing torch, wherein the mass flow controller controls the flow of gas based on either a first heating profile for making a single brazed connection using only the brazing torch, and a second heating profile for making two brazed connections simultaneously using both of the brazing torch and a second brazing torch.
The limitation “configured for making a brazed connection along a tube” is functional and dependent on the material worked upon. This does not further limit the system/apparatus. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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 at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights