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 Claims 1-14 and 16-19 in the reply filed on 9/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 should start with “The.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-14 and 16-19 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 Claim 1, Applicant introduces “a first terminal electrode and a second terminal electrode” the refers to “the terminal electrodes” without providing antecedent basis for this term. It is unclear if the terminal electrodes refer to the first terminal electrode and the second terminal electrode. Examiner assumes they do but Applicant must use consistent language for clarity.
Examiner submits “in particular” renders Claim 14 indefinite, it being unclear if the device must be battery powered. Examiner assumes it does not since it is recited in Claim 19, and Applicant should either claim this directly or delete it.
Remaining claim are rejected as dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cox et al. (US 2,682,596).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 11, Cox et al. teaches a heater having electrode terminals at connections [22],[24] (See col. 4, lines 13-27, wherein one side of the source of current in at [24] and the other side at [22], each being downward facing legs of a U-shape formed centrally via slits [9] in the sheet as shown in Fig. 1, and connected by a connection region at the edge, i.e. a heat tip), wherein any connection points on the heater are terminal electrodes and wherein the heating element is a flat planar sheet of metal, such as stainless steel, i.e. a steel blank (See Fig. 2 and col. 1, lines 38-45). Examiner submits the heating device has a contact surface and thus may be utilized as contact heating device, such as for seaming or other bonding if bondable material are held overlapping thereon. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Note Claims 13 and 14 fail by the same intended use. Although automatic joining machine and hand-held may be considered structural to an extent, they add no specific structural features, thus their structural limitations are considered minimal. Any heat powered by current can be turned on and maintained without effort or turned off at will and thus is automatically powered heat as opposed to heat such as a fire. For the reasons above, if heat bondable flat flexible materials are pressed against the automatically power heat, they will be joined, and thus automatic joining is undefined structurally and is an intended use. Further, generic automating has not been considered inventive. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, (CCPA 1958). Thus, since only a heater is claimed, even if this heater must activate automatically, such generic automating is not inventive. Likewise, the heater in Cox et al is small and can be held by hand, and is capable of bonding flat, flexible material bonded by heat as described and thus it is a hand-held device. Applicant should add actual structure if they do not want this interpretation.
Regarding Claims 4-6 and 18, Cox et al. teaching the ends of the slits, i.e. in the connection region, is where current and heat accumulates and U-shaped slits [11] that serve as structuring distribute this heat in that region (See col. 3, lines 25-42), and thus the connection region is configured to provide more heat than the legs and the slits [11] by their nature increase heat (See col. 2, line 49 to col. 3, line 19, indicating silts increase resistance in the area of the slit and thus increase heat output, and by their very nature providing a predetermined temperature distribution ). Note each legs of the U-shaped incision is reasonably considered a symmetrical incision that meets at the top of the U.
Regarding Claim 9, the sheet is thin foil that may be on flexible material such as paper or fabric (See col. 1, line 41 to col. 2, line 15, contracting flexible to rigid backings). Note such flexibility can occur on any surface including floors, and Applicant’s “so as” clause does little to limit the scope other than to define the flexibility property.
Regarding Claim 12, each U-shaped portion between slits [9] are separate heaters connected to terminal electrodes [12],[15] (See Fig. 1, and col. 3, line 70 to col. 4, line 10, wherein the whole surface may be unsevered and applied current and each area around slits [11] may be heating elements or each area between slits [9]).
Regarding Claim 17, Cox et al. further teaches U-stapes slits [11] fanned out over each side over long slit [9] in what may be described as a tree shape.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH11277633 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 11, JPH11277633 teaches a heater having terminals first and second terminals connected to terminal electrodes/leads [13] or [12b] of a heating element that is a directly energized flat, planar stainless steel (See Figs. 1-2 and page 4, paragraph [0005] and pages 8-9, paragraphs [0011]-[0013], wherein heating element [12] is stainless steel flat semi-annular, i.e. U-shaped, circles that is shown as flat, and has connections portions [12a] that serve as terminal electrodes, or the external [13] current source may also be considered an electrode). Note this is considered a sheet steel blank as claimed (See page 14, paragraph [0020], it being described as “plate-shaped”).
JPH11277633 teaches the device is for sealing sheets, i.e. material pieces, that are overlapping, and thus reasonably seam bonding as claimed (See page 2, paragraphs [0001]-[0002]). Further, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Note Claims 13 and 14 fail by the same intended use. Although automatic joining machine and hand-held may be considered structural to an extent, they add no specific structural features, thus their structural limitations are considered minimal. The contact hear is for sealing via applied current can be turned on and maintained without effort or turned off at will and thus is automatically powered heat as opposed to heat such as a fire. If pressed again heat bondable flat flexible materials, they will be automatically joined. Further, generic automating has not been considered inventive. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, (CCPA 1958). Thus, since only a sealing heater is claimed, even if this sealing heater must seal automatically rather than manually, such generic automating is not inventive. Likewise, the heater in JPH11277633 would appear to be small and intended to be held by hand, and thus is capable of bonding flat, flexible material bonded by heat as described and thus it is a hand-held device. At the very least, it would have been hand-held to manually press on surfaces. Applicant should add actual structure if they do not want these interpretations.
Regarding Claim 3, the Examiner submits each connection portion [12b] is a leg adjacent in the same plane and connected by the semi-annular U-shaped connection portion, the first and second terminal electrode being [13] in this interpretation (See Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, not dependent on claim 3, the connection portions [12b] themselves may be considered the lateral extensions of the steel blank that are the terminal electrodes. Note “laterally beyond” is not specific without a frame of reference and the only frame of reference is a feed direction that is not defined and is not part of the structure of the device. If sheets for sealing were brought in from a side direction, the connections [12b] are transverse to it. Further, if the annular circle [12] is held in the vertical plane, the connections [12b] are lateral extensions, the structure is the same no matter how the device is held and thus connection portions [12b], terminals for a current source [13], are considered lateral extensions of the U-shaped heating element, both being the same piece of stainless steel.
Regarding Claim 9, JPH11277633 indicates the layers are thin (See page 11, paragraph [0016], and note this describes the electrode but the heating element [14] is clearly similar in thickness) and stainless steel (See page 10, paragraph [0014]), which is flexible, the heating element [12] is considered mechanically flexible as claimed.
Regarding Claim 10, the first and second terminal electrode may be [13] and each portion [12b] creates a folded corner that is a seam at the rear end (See Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, as described above, JPH11277633 teaches two semi-annular portions each connected between terminal electrodes [13], thus being separate heating elements as claimed.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Loetscher et al. (US 2018/0015676).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 13, Loetscher et al. teaches a steel sheet blank [17] as a heat resistor [16] heating element with terminal electrodes [13],[13’] that energize it (See Fig. 3a, page 2, paragraph [0011], and page 5, paragraph [0044]) and used in an automatic welding device (See Abstract). Examiner notes the sheet is described as a wedge with a folded end forming a kink (See page 2, paragraph [0011], and note the kink is a seam that is the further section of Claim 10). Examiner submits each side of a wedge is a flat side meeting at the kink point of the fold and thus the sheet blank is reasonably taught as flat, since it may be flat in areas. Although it is taught as concave in “an advantageous embodiment,” by the language alone, this is clearly not the only possibility, and thus the other embodiments describing it as a wedge without it being concave imply a standard wedge with flat sides, such a wedge being described as known (See page 1, paragraph [0007], and note multiple references listed disclose a wedge with a flat side or sides). Thus, although a flat wide wedge is likely implied by the non-concave embodiment, at the very least, it is obvious since it is taught as a standard heating wedge structure in the prior art. Since these wedge sides are heated via an energized steel blank, which as discussed, at least may be flat in this area, it is an energized flat planar steel blank in this area.
Regarding Claim 3, Loetscher et al. teaches planar flat outer edges [20],[20’] connected to respective terminal electrodes [13],[13’], one effectively on top of each other, and connected at a heated tip via the heating resistor portion [16] of the steel blank [17] (See Fig. 3a). Note as described, this is at least obvious in the alternative.
Regarding Claim 7, Loetscher et al. teaches outer edges [20],[20’] as terminal, i.e. terminal electrodes, extend laterally from the heating portion [16] of the steel sheet [17] (See Fig. 3a). Note no structural framework is provided for feeding or bonding nor is a feeding direction defined relative to any structure in the claimed device. This the direction transverse to the lateral extensions [20],[20’] is a feed direction.
Regarding Claim 8, Loetscher et al. teach the steel sheet blank is 0.1 to 1 mm (See page 5, paragraph [0044]). Note Applicant includes two alternative ranges that are narrower than the main range, and thus entirely pointless. The scope is 0.1-1.5 mm and Applicant should delete the other alternatives because they are superfluous.
Regarding Claim 9, Examiner submits a thin steel black is reasonably characterized as mechanically flexible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11277633 as applied to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, JPH11277633 teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. JPH11277633 further teaches the electrode [13] may be about 0.4 mm (See page 11, paragraph [0016]). Although JPH11277633 is silent as to the stainless steel [12] thickness is it implied to be similar and thus it at least would have been obvious to utilize steel in the range of 0.4 mm.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. as applied to Claims 5, and further in view of Carpino, II et al. (US 2006/0201933).
Regarding Claim 16, Cox et al. teaches the method of Claim 5 as described above. Cox et al. further teaches U-stapes slits [11] fanned out over each side over long slit [9] in what may be described as a tree shape as described above. Cox et al. teaches a U and does not teach angles incisions as claimed but does discuss the incisions increase resistance and heat. Further, it is well-known in controlling resistance to vary hole/incision by shape, size, spacing can change the resistivity as desired (See, for example, Carpino, II et al., page 1, paragraphs [0005]-[0006] and page 2, paragraph [0031]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary the style and shape of the U-shape slit to similar or slightly alter effect. For example, two closely space separate 45 degree mirror image lines as opposed to a U would have likely as a similar effect as the U whereas four 45 degree lines like would have decreased resistance further. It would have been obvious to add slit as desired in any shape, e.g. U or angled lines, so as to curate and optimize the resistance and heating profile as desired via slits of any shape and angle, such as is taught in Carpino, II et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11277633 as applied to Claims 14, and further in view of DE202023102828 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 19, JPH11277633 teaches the method of Claim 14 as described above. JPH11277633 appears to teach a hand-held plastic welder supplied with power but is silent as to the power source and does not teach it is battery-powered. However, battery powered plastic welders are known in the art and provide an advantageous internal power source allowing operation varied location far from external power sources (See, for example, DE202023102828, page 1, paragraph 1 and Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement a battery-power source into the welder of JPH11277633. Doing so would have predictably enabled more versatile use of the welder far from a power source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights