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 .
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 welding equipment 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With respect to claims 1-16, the limitation with respect to the rewelding reflow system does not appear enabled for the following reasons. As set forth in MPEP 2164, the enablement inquiry is based on the Wands factors. In re Wands, 858 F. 2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). These factors include the following:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The invention states rewelding reflow system. Rewelding and reflow are two different processes. Rewelding is the act of welding something again. Reflow is to remelt. Reflow is used with solder and brazing. The claim appears to be directed to welding. The current specification does not describe the welding process to describe how the rewelding reflow is occurring. There are no working examples on the type of welding that is being performed in order to achieve a reweld reflow. Working examples would be needed to further understand how a rewelding reflow system is to work since reflow and reweld are two different processes. There is not enough direction provided by the Applicant to conduct a proper search based on the claims and current specification. One skilled in the art would not know what type of welding to use in order to achieve a reflow reweld without undue experimentation. There is nothing within the prior art that actually uses rewelding and reflow together since they are two different processes. Since there is no description or specific examples stating the type of welding being performed, one skilled in the art may think the Applicant is actually soldering or brazing instead of welding. Due to lack of understanding for rewelding reflow, these claims not enabled.
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 1-16 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 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by rewelding reflow system. Rewelding and reflowing are different processes. Rewelding is welding over a welded area. Reflow is for soldering or brazing and is for remelting solder/braze that is applied to a surface. It is unclear if this system is welding or soldering/brazing. There is no specific type of welding/soldering/brazing described in the current specification, so the Examiner cannot determine what the system is actually doing. For the purpose of examination, the system can be for soldering or brazing or welding. If it is for welding, there should be no reflow occurring. If it is for soldering or brazing there should be no rewelding. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wu (CN108406109B from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a cell top cover rewelding reflow system comprising: a discharge conveyor line 1, wherein an input end is connected to welding equipment 3, and an output end extends toward a discharge position; a reflow conveyor line 2 disposed on one side of the discharge conveyor line, wherein an output end of the reflow conveyor line is connected to the welding equipment 3; and a conveying direction of the discharge conveyor line is opposite to a conveying direction of the reflow conveyor line, and the discharge conveyor line and the reflow conveyor line are arranged side by side; and a sorting module comprising a first frame and a pickup member, wherein the first frame, the discharge conveyor line, and the reflow conveyor line are relatively fixed, and the pickup member is movably disposed on the first frame to be capable of moving relative to the first frame to positions corresponding to the discharge conveyor line and the reflow conveyor line, respectively, to transfer cells to be rewelded on the discharge conveyor line to the reflow conveyor line (paragraphs 0011-0013.
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