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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 6 August 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06 August 2025 and 22 April 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a frame” – claim 1
“a housing” – claim 5
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 Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 3 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitations, “feeding strap” and “retracting strap”, should read, “feeding a strap” and “retracting the strap”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitations 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 limitations are:
“a device” in claim 1.
“a strapping head” in claim 2
“a strap-feeding assembly” – claim 6
“a strap tensioning assembly” – claim 6
“a strap-sealing assembly” – claim 6
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 2 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the limitation, “itself”, is indefinite because the term “itself” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “itself” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “sealing the strap to itself to form the tensioned loop of strap”, to mean “sealing the strap to form the tensioned loop of strap”. Please note, since claims 4 – 8 depend upon claim 3, claims 4 – 8 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the limitation, “second data”, is indefinite because the term implies first data but the claims do not explicitly recite this first data. However, claim 1, upon which claim 7 depends, recites, “the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store data representing a device identifier associated with the device”; however, it is ambiguous whether this data is the first data implied by the limitation, “second data”, in claim 7, or this first data is not recited. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store data representing a device identifier associated with the device” in claim 1, to mean ““the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store first data representing a device identifier associated with the device”. Please note, since claim 8 depends upon claim 7 and claims 10 – 16 depend on claim 9, claims 8 and 10 – 16 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 – 10, and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luo (EP 3 677 736 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a strapping machine for strapping a load, the strapping machine comprising:
a frame (gun shell of fig. 3);
a device (gun head of fig. 1) supported by the frame (as shown in fig. 5) and configured to carry out at least part of a strapping process to form a tensioned loop of strap around the load;
a strapping-machine controller (“the main control unit” and “electronic tag reader”; [0040] – [0041]) configured to control the device to carry out the at least part of the strapping process.;
a device-identifying module (“an RFID electronic tag”; [0040] – [0041]) for identifying the device, the device-identifying module comprising a device-identifying-module controller (the integrated circuit within the RFID electronic tag) communicatively connected to the strapping-machine controller, wherein the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store first data representing a device identifier associated with the device ([0040] describes the RFID electronic tag storing gun head information) and is configured to, when powered on, automatically generate and transmit a device-identifier signal representing the device identifier to the strapping-machine controller ([0040] – [0041] describes when the gun head of fig. 1 is connected with the gun shell of fig. 3, a signal having the gun head information is generated transmitted by the RFID electronic tag to the main control unit).
Regarding claim 9, Luo discloses the strapping-machine controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) is configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal ([0040] – [0041] describes the main control unit reading the gun head information from the RFID electronic tag implying the main control unit and the electronic tag reader processed the signal from the RFID electronic tag and generated and stored data based on this signal representing the gun head information).
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses a sensor (“a light detection device”; [0030]) configured to sense a physical phenomenon related to operation of the device during the at least part of the strapping process ([0030] describes a light detecting device detecting the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor) and to generate and transmit a representative output signal to the strapping-machine controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) ([0030] describes the light detection device connected to the main control unit implying the light detection device generates and transmits a representative output signal of the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor to the main control unit), wherein the strapping-machine controller is configured to generate output data based on the output signal and store the output data in association with the second data representing the device identifier ([0036] describes the main control unit setting a threshold of the number of rotations corresponding to the wire feeding motor for different gun head information implying the main control unit reads/generates output data representing the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor based on the output signal of the light detection device and at least temporarily stores this output data in order to compare these rotations of the wire feeding motor with the threshold).
Regarding claim 17, Luo discloses a method for identifying a device of a strapping machine using a device-identifying module of the strapping machine, the method comprising:
powering a device-identifying-module controller (the integrated circuit within the RFID electronic tag) of the device-identifying module (“an RFID electronic tag”; [0040] – [0041]) ([0040] – [0041] describes when the gun head of fig. 1 is connected with the gun shell of fig. 3, a signal having the gun head information is generated and transmitted by the RFID electronic tag to the main control unit. This implies that the integrated circuit within the RFID electronic tag is powered);
responsive to being powered, automatically transmitting, via the device-identifying- module controller, a device-identifier signal representing a device identifier to a controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) ([0040] – [0041] describes when the gun head of fig. 1 is connected with the gun shell of fig. 3, a signal having the gun head information is generated and transmitted by the RFID electronic tag to the electronic tag reader and the main control unit); and
processing, via the controller, the device-identifier signal and generating and storing data representing the device-identifier signal ([0040] – [0041] describes the main control unit reading the gun head information from the RFID electronic tag implying the main control unit and the electronic tag reader processed the signal from the RFID electronic tag and generated and stored data based on this signal representing the gun head information).
Regarding claim 18, Luo discloses sensing, via a sensor (“a light detection device”; [0030]), a physical phenomenon related to operation of the device during at least part of a strapping process ([0030] describes a light detecting device detecting the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor); generating and transmitting, via the sensor, a representative output signal to the controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) ([0030] describes the light detection device connected to the main control unit implying the light detection device generates and transmits a representative output signal of the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor to the main control unit); generating, via the controller, output data based on the output signal; and storing, via the controller, the output data in association with the data representing the device identifier ([0036] describes the main control unit setting a threshold of the number of rotations corresponding to the wire feeding motor for different gun head information implying the main control unit reads/generates output data representing the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor based on the output signal of the light detection device and at least temporarily stores this output data in order to compare these rotations of the wire feeding motor with the threshold).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 – 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 8,701,555 B2) in view of Brettschneider (US 11,414,225 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bell discloses a strapping machine for strapping a load, the strapping machine comprising:
a frame (12, fig. 2);
a device (14, 16, 18, and/or 24, fig. 2) supported by the frame and configured to carry out at least part of a strapping process to form a tensioned loop of strap around the load;
a strapping-machine controller (22, fig. 2) configured to control the device to carry out the at least part of the strapping process.
Bell does not explicitly disclose a device-identifying module for identifying the device, the device-identifying module comprising a device-identifying-module controller communicatively connected to the strapping-machine controller, wherein the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store data representing a device identifier associated with the device and is configured to, when powered on, automatically generate and transmit a device-identifier signal representing the device identifier to the strapping-machine controller.
However, Brettschneider, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a device-identifying module (19, fig. 3) for identifying the device (While the embodiment of the drawings show the device as a sealer 5, 6, 7, col. 2, ll. 17 – 24 describes the device can also be the sealer, a tensioner and/or a feeder. Thus, the examiner deems the sealer, tensioner, and/or the feeder as the claimed, “a device”), the device-identifying module comprising a device-identifying-module controller (Col. 1, l. 66 – col. 2, l. 2 describes a near-field communication (NFC) chip 19 as a module having a transponder wherein col. 2, ll. 33 – 40 describes this transponder as a microcomputer having at least one antenna, a circuit for receiving and transmitting and/or exchanging data with the reader and a nonvolatile memory. The examiner deems this transponder as the claimed, “a device-identifying-module controller”. Col. 7, ll. 26 – 29 describes this transponder coupled to the controller 18 via a reader 20) communicatively connected to the strapping-machine controller (18, 20, figs. 1, 3), wherein the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store first data representing a device identifier associated with the device (Col. 7, ll. 30 – 33 describes module-specific data stored in a nonvolatile memory of the transponder wherein this module-specific data includes the article number, production number, and the year of manufacture of a device. The examiner deems the article number, production number, and the year of manufacture of the device as the claimed, “a device identifier”) and is configured to, when powered on, automatically generate and transmit a device-identifier signal representing the device identifier to the strapping-machine controller (Col. 2, ll. 20 – 51 describes the transponder powered via induction when the transponder comes in proximity to the reader 20 wherein a type of “electronic stamp” or “electronic imprint” representing the device identifier is automatically generated and transmitted to the reader to establish a data link between the transponder and the reader 20/controller 18) (With the incorporation of the teachings of Brettschneider with the invention of Bell, the strap-feeding assembly 14, the strap-tensioning assembly 16, and/or the strap-sealing assembly 18 of Bell would be interchangeable, complex elements within the strapping tool of Bell that are individually removable via removable screws or bolts, as taught in col. 2, ll. 4 – 19 of Brettschneider. These elements would each have a NFC 19 with their own transponders, as implied in Brettschneider. Lastly, a reader 20 corresponding to each NFC 19 would be placed elsewhere on the strapping tool of Bell, as also implied in Brettschneider).
Brettschneider is evidence that having a device-identifying module for identifying the device, the device-identifying module comprising a device-identifying-module controller communicatively connected to the strapping-machine controller, wherein the device-identifying-module controller is configured to store data representing a device identifier associated with the device and is configured to, when powered on, automatically generate and transmit a device-identifier signal representing the device identifier to the strapping-machine controller was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping tool of Bell to have the device-identifying module and its functions as taught by Brettschneider. Moreover, it would been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping tool of Bell to have the device-identifying module and its functions as taught by Brettschneider in order to provide an interchangeability of components opening up the possibility of either replacing or overhauling individual complex elements in the event of a problem (Col. 1, ll. 43 – 45) and to ensure whether or not these interchanged components matches/pairs with the relevant drive of the strapping tool (Col. 8, ll. 5 – 9).
Regarding claim 2, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, discloses the invention of claim 1.
Bell discloses a strap chute (16, fig. 2) shaped and positioned to circumscribe the load, wherein the device (14, 16, and/or 18, fig. 2) comprises a strapping head (14, 16, 18, fig. 2) configured to carry out the strapping process by feeding strap around the strap chute, retracting strap from the strap chute onto the load (Col. 4, ll. 32 – 37), tensioning the strap around the load (Col. 4, ll. 38 – 40), and sealing the strap to form the tensioned loop of strap around the load (Col. 4, ll. 48 – 51).
Regarding claim 3, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, discloses the invention of claim 1.
Bell discloses a strap chute (20, fig. 2) shaped and positioned to circumscribe the load and a strapping head (14, 16, 18, fig. 2) configured to carry out the strapping process by feeding strap around the strap chute, retracting strap from the strap chute onto the load (Col. 4, ll. 32 – 37), tensioning the strap around the load (Col. 4, ll. 38 – 40), and sealing the strap to form the tensioned loop of strap around the load (Col. 4, ll. 48 – 51), wherein the device (14, 16, 18, fig. 2) comprises the strapping head.
Regarding claim 6, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, discloses the invention of claim 3.
The modified Bell discloses the strapping head (Bell – 14, 16, 18, fig. 2) comprises a strap-feeding assembly (Bell – 14, fig. 2) configured to feed the strap around the strap chute and retract the strap from the strap chute, a strap-tensioning assembly (Bell – 16, fig. 2) configured to tension the strap around the load, and a strap-sealing assembly (Bell – 18, fig. 2) configured to seal the strap, wherein the strap-feeding assembly, the strap-tensioning assembly, and the strap-sealing assembly are individually removably mounted to the frame (Brettschneider – Col. 2, ll. 4 – 19 describes the feeder, the tensioner, and/or the sealer as interchangeable, complex elements within the strapping tool that are individually removable via removable screws or bolts), wherein the device (Bell – 14, 16, and/or 18, fig. 2) comprises the strap-feeding assembly, the strap- tensioning assembly, and/or the strap-sealing assembly.
Claims 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (US 8,701,555 B2), in view of Brettschneider (US 11,414,225 B2), in further view of Luo (EP 3,677,736 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, discloses the invention of claim 6.
The modified Bell does not explicitly disclose the strapping-machine controller is configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal.
However, Luo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the strapping-machine controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) is configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal ([0040] – [0041] describes the main control unit reading the gun head information from the RFID electronic tag implying the main control unit and the electronic tag reader processed the signal from the RFID electronic tag and generated and stored data based on this signal representing the gun head information).
Luo is evidence that having the strapping-machine controller configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping-machine controller of the modified Bell with the function of processing the device-identifier signal and generating and storing the second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal, as taught by Luo. Moreover, it would been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping-machine controller of the modified Bell with the function of processing the device-identifier signal and generating and storing the second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal, as taught by Luo, in order to regulate the strapping tool in accordance to the device attached to the strapping tool (Col. 4, ll. 7 – 18).
Regarding claim 8, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, as further modified by Luo, discloses the invention of claim 7.
The modified Bell discloses a sensor (Luo – “a light detection device”; [0030]) configured to sense a physical phenomenon related to operation of the device during the at least part of the strapping process (Luo – [0030] describes a light detecting device detecting the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor) and to generate and transmit a representative output signal to the strapping-machine controller (Luo – “the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) ([0030] describes the light detection device connected to the main control unit implying the light detection device generates and transmits a representative output signal of the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor to the main control unit), wherein the strapping-machine controller is configured to generate output data based on the output signal and store the output data in association with the second data representing the device identifier (Luo – [0036] describes the main control unit setting a threshold of the number of rotations corresponding to the wire feeding motor for different gun head information implying the main control unit reads/generates output data representing the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor based on the output signal of the light detection device and at least temporarily stores this output data in order to compare these rotations of the wire feeding motor with the threshold).
Regarding claim 9, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, discloses the invention of claim 1.
The modified Bell does not explicitly disclose the strapping-machine controller is configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal.
However, Luo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the strapping-machine controller (“the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) is configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal ([0040] – [0041] describes the main control unit reading the gun head information from the RFID electronic tag implying the main control unit and the electronic tag reader processed the signal from the RFID electronic tag and generated and stored data based on this signal representing the gun head information).
Luo is evidence that having the strapping-machine controller configured to process the device-identifier signal and to generate and store second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping-machine controller of the modified Bell with the function of processing the device-identifier signal and generating and storing the second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal, as taught by Luo. Moreover, it would been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping-machine controller of the modified Bell with the function of processing the device-identifier signal and generating and storing the second data representing the device identifier based on the device-identifier signal, as taught by Luo, in order to regulate the strapping tool in accordance to the device attached to the strapping tool (Col. 4, ll. 7 – 18).
Regarding claim 10, Bell, as modified by Brettschneider, as further modified by Luo, discloses the invention of claim 9.
The modified Bell discloses a sensor (Luo – “a light detection device”; [0030]) configured to sense a physical phenomenon related to operation of the device during the at least part of the strapping process (Luo – [0030] describes a light detecting device detecting the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor) and to generate and transmit a representative output signal to the strapping-machine controller (Luo – “the main control unit” and “a electronic tag reader; [0040] – [0041]) ([0030] describes the light detection device connected to the main control unit implying the light detection device generates and transmits a representative output signal of the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor to the main control unit), wherein the strapping-machine controller is configured to generate output data based on the output signal and store the output data in association with the second data representing the device identifier (Luo – [0036] describes the main control unit setting a threshold of the number of rotations corresponding to the wire feeding motor for different gun head information implying the main control unit reads/generates output data representing the number of rotations of the wire feeding motor based on the output signal of the light detection device and at least temporarily stores this output data in order to compare these rotations of the wire feeding motor with the threshold).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 15 and 19 – 20 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.
Claims 4 – 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
21 June 2026
Prosecution Insights