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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to an electrofusion tool, classified in B29C 65/3468.
II. Claims 13-20, drawn to a method of operating an electrofusion tool, classified in B29C 65/34.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process as claimed can be practiced by a materially different apparatus, such as one which does not have an electronic control unit configured to execute one of the recited system pre-checks. In particular, claim 13 does not indicate the electronic control unit is configured to execute one of the recited system pre-checks. Rather, executing by an electronic control unit, as recited in claim 13, is satisfied by a controller which merely instructs a user to perform the pre-check. Alternatively, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice a materially different process such as one which performs electrofusion for a purpose other than joining pipe ends. It is noted that an apparatus is not limited to recited material worked upon, but rather is only limited to structure implied thereby. See MPEP 2115.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The identified inventions require different text and/or classification searching. Additionally given that the claimed apparatus can practice a materially different process and/or the claimed process can be practiced by a materially different apparatus, it is likely that divergent prior art would be required to address each identified invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these 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.
During a telephone conversation with David Trautschold on 14 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-20 were withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 limitations are:
i. Claims 1 and 12, “electronic control unit”, which has been interpreted as a combination of a semi-conductor switches and a microprocessor, or equivalents thereof. See applicant’s published application (paragraph 20).
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.
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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding 10, parent claim 1 and intervening claim 9 use the term “set temperature threshold”. In claim 10, line 2, the examiner suggests --set temperature threshold.-- to use consistent claim terminology and thereby improve claim readability.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-12, it is unclear what is meant by “estimated electrical energy of the battery pack”. It is believed this term is referring to the estimated electrical energy required from the battery pack, i.e. to perform the electrofusion process. However the current language “estimated electrical energy of the battery pack” appears to have roughly the same meaning as the remaining charge capacity of the battery pack, which makes it unclear how the estimated electrical energy of the battery pack can be less than the remaining charge capacity of the battery pack. The examiner suggests --estimated electrical energy [[of]] required from the battery pack--.
Claim 9 recites both “comparing the estimated operating temperature of the battery pack with the set temperature threshold” and “comparing the set temperature threshold with the estimated operating temperature of the battery pack.” These limitations have essentially the same meaning, and thus it is unclear why both are recited. Applicant’s published application describes the third system pre-check in paragraph 35, but does not clarify this issue.
Regarding claim 12, intervening claim 9 recites "a present temperature". It is unclear in claim 12 if "a present temperature" is referencing the corresponding term recited in claim 9. The examiner suggests --[[a]] the present temperature-- in claim 12.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford (US 2024/0165893 A1) in view of Kobayakawa (US 2013/0033790 A1) and Groft (US 6441352).
Regarding claim 1, Rutherford teaches an electrofusion tool used in joining pipe ends of plastic pipes together via a pipe fitting during an electrofusion process (paragraphs 18-20), the electrofusion tool comprising a housing (Figures 3-5); electrical leads extending from the housing and configured to transfer a current from the battery pack to the pipe fitting for permanently joining the pipe ends together (Figures 4-5; paragraph 18-20).
Rutherford differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Rutherford does not recite a battery receptacle to selectively receive a rechargeable battery pack.
ii. Rutherford does not teach an electronic control unit configured to execute one or more steps, prior to initiating the electrofusion process, selected from a group consisting of: a first system pre-check to determine whether an estimated peak operating current is less than an output capacity of the electrofusion tool, a second system pre-check to determine whether an estimated electrical energy of the battery pack is less than a remaining charge capacity of the battery pack, and a third system pre-check to determine whether an estimated operating temperature of the battery pack is less than a set temperature threshold of the battery pack.
(i) It is generally known in the art of battery powered electrical devices to provide a battery receptacle to selectively receive a rechargeable battery pack. See Kobayakawa (Figures 1-3A; paragraphs 2, 53, 59-62 and 92-93). Such an arrangement provides the readily apparent advantages of a battery which can be recharged when depleted, and recharged on a separate battery charger as seen in Figure 3B of Kobayakawa. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the above noted advantages suggested by the teachings of Kobayakawa.
(ii) Rutherford teaches a system pre-check in which the total battery capacity is compared with the estimated electrical energy required from the battery pack to perform the electrofusion process (paragraphs 24-45). This is closest to the claimed second system pre-check configuration of the claimed electronic control unit, but does not clearly satisfy configuration to compare to a remaining charge capacity of the battery pack. However, in the art of electrofusion welding, Groft teaches an electronic control unit having semi-conductor switches and a microprocessor (see the interpretation of “electronic control unit” under 35 USC 112(f) above) and configured to execute a system pre-check in which an estimated electrical energy required from the battery pack is less than a remaining charge capacity of the battery pack (Figures 2B and 2D; column 3, lines 45-59; column 4, line 55; column 5, lines 33-37 and 55-64; column 6, lines 11-12; column 10, lines 46-67; column 11, lines 1-24). Groft explains that if there is insufficient energy in the battery, incomplete fusion will result and the joint will need to be replaced (column 2, lines 29-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the claimed configuration for the second system pre-check in Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to avoid incomplete fusion as suggested by the teachings of Groft.
Alternatively, Kobayakawa suggests configuration for the claimed third system pre-check. Kobayakawa teaches that overheating, i.e. naturally above a threshold temperature, can deteriorate a battery (paragraphs 3-4 and 25). To prevent overheating, Kobayakawa estimates battery temperature from current draw and time (paragraphs 6, 13-14, 19, 168-169 and 171) and suspends operation to prevent overheating (paragraphs 24-25 and 172). Since current draw and time for the electrofusion process are readily available as seen from Rutherford (paragraphs 24-43), it would have been apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art that Kobayakawa suggests that such information allows for an estimated battery temperature upon such electrofusion. It is clear from Groft, as noted above, that incomplete fusion will result in a joint which needs to be replaced. Accordingly, if electrofusion will yield a battery temperature which is above a threshold temperature which deteriorates the battery, then the battery will be deteriorated if electrofusion is completed, and the joint will need to be replaced if the fusion is interrupted before it is complete. In view of the teachings in Rutherford and/or Groft to perform a system pre-check, the examiner’s position is that Kobayakawa provides further motivation to perform the claimed third system pre-check in order to avoid overheating the battery or incomplete fusion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the claimed configuration for the third system pre-check in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to avoid overheating the battery or incomplete fusion as suggested by the above noted teachings of Kobayakawa and Groft.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford in view of Kobayakawa and Groft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carter (US 6680464).
Regarding claim 2, parent claim 1 clearly indicates that the electronic control unit is configured to execute one or more of the first, second and third system pre-checks. In contrast, the examiner’s interpretation of claim 2 is that the electronic control unit must be configured to execute all three of the system pre-checks in order to supply electrical current to the pipe fitting when the first, second and third system pre-checks are satisfactory. The configuration to execute the second and third system pre-checks is satisfied for the reasons provided above in view of the teachings of Groft and Kobayakawa.
As to the first system pre-check, such is not taught by Rutherford, as noted above. However, in the art of electrofusion, it is known to execute a system pre-check in which the estimated peak operating current of an electrofusion process is less than an output capacity of the electrofusion tool. Carter teaches that an electrofusion tool powered by a battery may, for example, have an output capacity of 720 W of power (column 9, lines 22-28; column 10, lines 32-35). Carter prevents the electrofusion process if the required power is too high for the electrofusion tool (column 9, line 45 to column 10, line 21; column 10, lines 59-61).
While Carter uses resistance of the of the electrofusion elements as a measure of required power output, it is noted that resistance, current and power are related by the formula P = I2·R, which is readily derived from the power formula P = I·V and Ohm’s law V = I·R, where the variables are power in watts, current, resistance and voltage, respectively. Thus it is clear from P = I2·R that any of power, current and resistance can be used as a measure of the required output to perform the electrofusion process for comparison with the output capacity of the electrofusion tool. As to estimating a peak operating current, naturally it is the peak or highest current which determines if the electrofusion tool has sufficient output capacity. Like Groft, Carter suggests a microprocessor to do the comparison (column 9, line 51 to column 10, line 21; column 10, lines 39-50).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the claimed configuration for the first system pre-check in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure the electrofusion tool has sufficient output capacity for an estimated peak operating current as suggested by the above noted teachings of Carter.
As to supplying electrical current when the system pre-checks are satisfactory, this is suggested by Carter, Groft and Kobayakawa in the modified apparatus of Rutherford to ensure the electrical current is only supplied if the electrofusion tool has sufficient output capacity (Carter; column 9, line 67 to column 10, lines 1-3; column 10, lines 59-61), has sufficient remaining charge capacity of the battery pack (Groft; column 3, lines 53-56; column 5, lines 33-37), and will not overheat the battery if the process is performed (Kobayakawa; paragraphs 168-169). Moreover, Rutherford explains that battery power is not used if a system pre-check is unsatisfactory (paragraph 45). The reasons for providing configuration to execute each system pre-check are further detailed above. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this capability in the modified apparatus of because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to avoid exceeding the output capacity of the electrofusion tool, incomplete fusion, or overheating the battery, as suggested by the above note teachings of Carter, Groft and Kobayakawa.
Claims 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford in view of Kobayakawa and Groft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nussbaum (US 4837424).
Regarding claim 3, Rutherford does not recite a scanner operable to scan the pipe fitting to obtain pipe fitting characteristics indicative of performance metrics for completing the electrofusion process. However, in the art of electrofusion welding, Nussbaum suggests these limitations to facilitate entry of the pipe fitting characteristics indicative of performance metrics to the electrofusion tool (Abstract; Figure; column 2, lines 20-31; column 3, lines 44-56; column 4, lines 33-59; column 5; Table bridging columns 11-12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate entry of desired parameters as suggested by the teachings of Nussbaum.
Regarding claims 4-5, these claims further define the alternative first system pre-check, which is not required by parent claim 1. Thus claims 4-5 are satisfied by either of the second or third system pre-check limitations. Accordingly, claims 4-5 are satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claims 6-7, these claims further define the alternative second system pre-check, which is not required by parent claim 1. Thus claims 6-7 are satisfied by the third system pre-check limitations. Accordingly, claims 6-7 are satisfied for the reasons provided above. Alternatively, Groft was relied upon for the second system pre-check configuration. Groft suggests an electronic control unit configured to execute a system pre-check in which it is determined whether an estimated electrical energy required from the battery pack is less than a remaining charge capacity of the battery pack (Figures 2B and 2D; column 3, lines 45-59; column 4, line 55; column 5, lines 33-37 and 55-64; column 6, lines 11-12). These teachings reasonably suggest obtaining remaining charge capacity of the battery pack for comparison with an estimated electrical energy required for the electrofusion process. As to calculating the estimated electrical energy based on the pipe fitting characteristics, Rutherford shows that such is known (paragraphs 24-45). Naturally the claimed comparison is suggested by Groft with the comparison providing a failing result when the estimated electrical energy is greater than the remaining charge capacity of the battery pack, to ensure there is sufficient energy in the battery for the electrofusion process to be completed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitation in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably configure the electronic control unit to ensure there is sufficient energy in the battery for the electrofusion process to be completed as suggested by the teachings of Groft.
Regarding claim 8, Rutherford does not recite the additional voltage sensor. However, Groft suggests providing a voltage sensor to determine when the charge capacity of the battery is low enough that electrofusion tool is shut off to prevent damage to the battery (column 12, lines 7-12). Such satisfies the additional voltage sensor limitation of claim 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to avoid damaging the battery by running the tool on at a low battery charge capacity as suggested by the teachings of Groft.
Regarding claims 9-11, these claims further define the alternative third system pre-check, which is not required by parent claim 1. Thus claims 9-11 are satisfied by the second system pre-check limitations. Accordingly, claims 9-11 are satisfied for the reasons provided above. Alternatively, the estimating and comparing limitations of claim 9 are satisfied for the reasons provided above with respect to Kobayakawa being used to satisfy the third system pre-check limitation.
Alternatively regarding claim 10, as applied above naturally the third system pre-check suggested by Kobayakawa fails when the estimated operating temperature exceeds the threshold temperature at which battery degradation occurs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to avoid battery degradation in accordance with the teachings of Kobayakawa.
Alternatively regarding claim 11, Kobayakawa is applied as above for the third system pre-check. Since Kobayakawa determines an estimated operating temperature from an expected increase in temperature due to the amount of current and time of current, Kobayakawa’s estimation is considered to satisfy the rather broad limitation of being “based on a present temperature”. This limitation does not require structure, such as a temperature sensor, to measure a present temperature.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford in view of Kobayakawa, Groft and Nussbaum as applied to claims 3-12 above, and further in view of Carter.
Regarding claim 4, above the examiner took the position that claims 4-5 are satisfied by the second or third system pre-checks and the further details of claim 4-5 are not required. Here, claims 4-5 are given further weight. Carter is applied for the first system pre-check as above in the rejection of claim 2. As noted above, Carter teaches that an electrofusion tool powered by a battery may, for example, have an output capacity of 720 W of power (column 9, lines 22-28; column 10, lines 32-35). Carter prevents the electrofusion process if the required power is too high for the electrofusion tool (column 9, line 45 to column 10, line 21; column 10, lines 59-61). Carter suggests configuring the electronic control unit to measure resistance by applying an electrical current and measuring a voltage drop across the electrical leads (column 9, lines 51-63). It is noted that the total resistance recited by Carter is naturally the voltage drop across the electrical leads which provide the current through the circuit (Figure 14). Thus Carter measures resistance R. Given a single fitting as in Rutherford, this resistance corresponds to the resistance of the fitting. The estimated peak operating current is readily calculated from Ohm’s Law as I = V / R (i.e. dividing voltage by resistance), where V is the specified voltage which should be applied to the fitting. Rutherford performs such a calculation at paragraphs 28-30 and 37-40. The maximum current of the electrofusion tool is readily calculated from P = I2·R given the maximum power output of the electrofusion tool and the resistance measured as above. Thus comparison of the peak operating current with the maximum power output current of the electrofusion tool is just another readily apparent way to determine if the electrofusion tool has sufficient output capacity to perform the electrofusion process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably compare the required current for electrofusion with the maximum current output capacity of the electrofusion tool to ensure the electrofusion tool has sufficient output capacity in view of the teachings of Carter and for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 5, naturally the first system pre-check fails when the estimated peak operating current is greater than the output capacity of the electrofusion tool because this corresponds to a situation in which the electrofusion tool has insufficient capacity to perform the electrofusion process. As noted above, Carter prevents the electrofusion process if the required power is too high for the electrofusion tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent the electrofusion process if the required power is too high for the electrofusion tool as suggested by the teachings of Carter.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rutherford in view of Kobayakawa, Groft and Nussbaum as applied to claims 3-12 above, and further in view of Okabayashi (US 2013/0108904 A1).
Regarding claim 12, while this additional limitation is not recited by Rutherford, in the related art of battery operated tools, it is known to provide a temperature sensor to determine a present temperature of the battery pack, wherein a controller stops the tool when the present temperature of the battery pack becomes greater than a set temperature threshold corresponding to overheating, such that the battery pack is protected. See Okabayashi (paragraphs 28 and 132). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this limitation in the modified apparatus of Rutherford because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to protect the battery pack from overheating as suggested by the teachings of Okabayashi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights