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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 February 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim objections. The previous Claim objections have been withdrawn. However, the Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for additional Claim objections.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejection. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was found, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 26 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, 11, 14, 17-18, and 21-23 have been amended.
Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17-23 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 13, 18, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending claim 5 to recite: “a first welding process parameter.”
Recommend amending claim 13 to recite: “the short circuit event.”
Recommend amending line 4 of claim 18 to recite: “a representative duration.”
Recommend amending line 3 of claim 21 to recite: “a representative duration” and line 10 of claim 21 to recite: “a short circuit event.”
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 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 limitation(s) is/are: “controller” in claims 1 and 14.
The generic placeholder is “controller” (replacement for a “means for controlling”) and the functional limitations are “…configured to…predict a short circuit event….control the switch to at least partially close…control the switch to at least partially open…”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes “digital and/or analog circuit, discrete or integrated circuit, microprocessors, DSPs, FPGAs, … and/or software, hardware and firmware, located on one or more boards.”
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (WO-2016205476-A1) in view of Hutchison et al. (US-20100006552-A1) and Aberg (US-20090302014-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anders teaches a welding-type system (“Welding System with Arc Control,” title), comprising:
a welding-type power source (Welding/Cladding Power Source, fig. 1) configured to generate output power (“provide welding-type power,” para 0010) for an arc welding process (“arc control circuit,” para 0039);
a wire feeder (wire feeder 104, fig. 1) configured to at least advance (“advance,” para 0005) an electrode wire (welding wire 107, fig. 1) toward a workpiece (work piece 108, fig. 1);
a weld cable (“output weld cables,” para 0044) providing the output power (“between the power source and wire feeder," para 0044; providing output to the welding torch using the weld cable is not explicitly disclosed) to a welding torch (contact tip 106, fig. 1);
one or more sensors (sensors 110 and 114, fig. 1; sensor 706, fig. 7; “current and/or voltage sensor,” para 0016) configured to measure one or more welding process parameters (“current and/or voltage,” para 0016; “current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; “clamping time,” para 0083);
a switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) to provide an alternative current path (path or circuit through the Arc Voltage Clamp 112, fig. 1; “Arc clamp module 112 provides an alternative output current path in parallel with wire cladding 107,” para 0043) for arc current between a primary current path (path or circuit through the contact tip 106 to the work piece 108, fig. 1; “shunts current from wire cladding 107,” para 0043) via the weld cable (“output weld cables,” para 0044) and a workpiece (work piece 108, fig. 1; “TO WORK,” fig. 13), wherein the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is connected to one or more of the one or more sensors (connected through control module 116, figs. 1 and 13, which applies feedback for controlling the current flow through the arc voltage clamp 112 using the gate drive 504), the primary current path (“to wire feeder,” fig. 13), or the workpiece (“to work,” fig. 13),
a controller (arc clamp module 116, fig. 1; “digital and analog circuitry, discrete or integrated circuitry, microprocessors, DSPs, etc., and software, hardware and firmware, located on one or more boards, used to control a device or module such as a power circuit or arc clamp module,” para 0013; an arc clamp module 116 is construed as controlling the gate drive 504, which is shown in fig. 11) configured to:
in response to predicting the short circuit event (step 1211, fig. 14; clearing the short is construed as the claimed “short circuit event”), control the switch to at least partially close (“arc clamp module arc clamp control module 116 in controller 103 turns on switch 502,” para 0074; step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (“If the short is beginning to clear the control proceeds to step 1403 and 1215 where switch 502 is turned on,” para 0079; “when switch 502 is on, some current is diverted from the weld into the clamp,” para 0071; construed such that the output current is reduced when the switch 502 is on) and
control the switch to at least partially open (step 1219 “Turn off Switch,” fig. 14; “when 502 is off, all current goes into the weld,” para 0071; construed such that the output current increases when the switch 502 is off) in response to a second welding process parameter (“relies on a timer or process feedback to end the clamping,” para 0079) of the one or more welding process parameters (“current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; “until some process parameter is reached, the switch turns off,” para 0071) exceeding a second threshold value (“After a desired amount of time, or until some process parameter is reached, both switches 502 and 1102 turn off, and the cycle starts again,” para 0074).
Anders, figs. 1 and 13-14
PNG
media_image1.png
598
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
352
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Anders does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to: during an arc event, predict a short circuit event based on a determination that a measured arc duration of the arc event exceeds a representative duration; in response to predicting the short circuit event, control the switch to at least partially close; the representative duration being calculated based upon a measured arc duration or calculated arc duration of each of a predetermined number of previous arc events; prior to a short circuit clearance event of the short circuit event, control the switch to at least partially open in response to receipt of a second welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters exceeding a second threshold value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Hutchison teaches a controller (controller 807, fig. 8; microprocessor 808, fig. 8) configured to:
during an arc event (Thld and Tback, fig. 1; paras 0050-0051), predict a short circuit event (“when Vc crosses Vthreshold controller 807 determines, in real time, that the short is about to clear,” para 0065; fig. 3 shows the voltage crossing the voltage threshold, which is construed as being the prediction of a “short circuit event,” i.e., when the short is about to clear) based on a determination (prediction is based on the conclusion of TWET, paras 0057-0065; TWET is determined by “TWETOld+WETtgain*(Tarcset−Tarcactual),” para 0056) that a measured arc duration of the arc event (Tarcactual, para 0056; “the time of each arc,” para 0056; construed as the sum of Thld and Tback, fig. 1) exceeds a representative duration (Tarcset , para 0056; “if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056; the preset nominal value is construed as the claimed “representative duration”)
in response to predicting the short circuit event (para 0065; fig. 3), control the switch to at least partially close (“The active stabilizer is fired by controller 905 after the dP/dt circuit determines that the short is about to clear or is clearing,” para 0075; “current is reduced,” para 0077; current is reduced after TRISE2, fig. 1);
prior to a short circuit clearance event (“short clearing,” para 0065) of the short circuit event (crossing the threshold takes place prior to the short clearing, para 0065), control the switch to at least partially open (current increases after a delay in Dly1, fig. 3 during Tdpdt, fig. 1) in response to receipt of a second welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters exceeding a second threshold value (“controller 807 does not sense the comparator output until after a delay, Dly1, from the beginning of TRise.,” para 0064; similar to Anders, Hutchison teaches a delay until increasing the output current).
Hutchison, figs 1 and 3
PNG
media_image4.png
1293
865
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1251
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders, in view of the teachings of Hutchison, by using the predictive technique, as taught by Hutchison, to control the logic of the gate drive circuit 504, as taught by Anders, in order to predict the short clearing, so as to control the size of the ball that forms at the end of the wire during short-circuit welding, for the advantage of adequately controlling the burn-off rate during welding, because if the rate is not controlled, then increased spatter will result during welding (Hutchison, paras 0003-0015; Anders references the predictive control taught by Hutchison in para 0004).
Anders/Hutchison do not explicitly disclose the representative duration being calculated based upon a measured arc duration or calculated arc duration of each of a predetermined number of previous arc events (Hutchison does not explicitly disclose that the equation taught in para 0056 is used for a “predetermined number of previous arc events”).
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Aberg teaches the representative duration (“
R
r
e
g
, set value for R” para 0032; the equation taught by Aberg in para 0029 resembles the equation taught by Hutchison in para 0056) being calculated based upon a measured arc duration (not explicitly disclosed) or calculated arc duration (“arc time,” para 0031) of each of a predetermined number of previous arc events (“
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
,
”
para 0029; the index “n” in the equation is construed as the claimed “predetermined” number of previous arc events; this is a difference equation, so past values are reflected in the equation, e.g.,
E
n
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
; substituting into the previous equation,
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
;
R
r
e
g
is used in the calculation for each of the previous arc events; the time at index “n+1” is construed as the current arc event).
Aberg, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
468
598
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders/Hutchison, in view of the teachings of Aberg, to include using the present nominal value for the arc time, as taught by Hutchison, iteratively as a basis for control after each periodic short circuit, as taught by Aberg, in order to regulate the timing of the short circuiting relative to the period time (sum of short circuiting time plus the arc time) at a desired set value, which has a surprisingly good effect on the tolerance of the welding towards different external influencing factors, such as the distance between a contact tip and a workpiece (Aberg, para 0012; Hutchison has a similar teaching, para 0055).
Regarding claim 2, Anders teaches wherein the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is configured to adjust the amount of the arc current flowing through the alternative current path between the weld cable and a workpiece cable (“Switch 502 can be PWMed,” para 0073; construed as pulse width modulation; capacitor 1112 has “cable inductance,” para 0070) to regulate a voltage level or a current level of the arc welding process (step 1215, fig. 14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Anders in view of Hutchison and Aberg as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Anders teaches wherein the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is configured to: receive data (“ICLAMP FEEDBACK,” and “VCLAMP FEEDBACK,” fig. 1) corresponding to the one or more welding process parameters (“current and/or voltage,” para 0016); compare the data to a plurality of threshold values associating welding process parameters to short clearance events (paras 0081 and 0083); and predict the short circuit event (para 0083) based on the one or more welding process parameters (para 0081). Additionally, Aberg teaches a controller (regulator 9, fig. 1) configured to: calculate the representative duration (“
R
r
e
g
, set value for R” para 0032) based on the measured arc duration (not explicitly disclosed) or the calculated arc duration (“arc time,” para 0031) of each of the N number of previous arc events (“
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
,
"
para 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Anders teaches wherein the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is further configured to generate control signals (“control signals,” para 0013) based on the one or more welding process parameters (“current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; “clamping time,” para 0083) and the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is configured to receive the control signals from the controller (“clamp control module 116 in controller 103 turns on switch 502,” para 0074) and adjust the amount of the arc current flowing through the alternative current path based on the control signals (“Switch 502 can be PWMed,” para 0074; construed as pulse width modulation for turning on and off the current shunted through the transistor 502 when the pulses controlling the transistor 502 are either high or low based on a duty ratio).
Regarding claim 5, Anders teaches wherein the first welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters comprises at least one of a voltage measured between the electrode wire and the workpiece (“weld process voltage,” para 0081); a rate of change of the arc current (“di/dt, para 0081) or a power output (rate of change of output power “dp/dt,” paras 0004 and 0081) from the welding-type power source (“welding power supply providing thresholds,” para 0083).
Regarding claim 8, Anders teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the switch is a semiconductor based device.
However, in a different embodiment, Anders teaches wherein the switch is a semiconductor based device (“mosfet,” para 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of fig. 13, by using a MOSFET, as taught in fig. 11, for the transistor 502, as taught in fig. 13, in order to use a field effect transistor, because field effect transistors (FETs) require less current in comparison to traditional transistors, for the advantage of reducing the thermal stress in the circuit as well as the amount of power (voltage times current) required to control the circuit, due to the relatively minimal amount of current required in order to operate a FET compared to a traditional transistor (Anders teaches “other types of semiconductor switches,” para 0070 and “thermal management and control,” para 0059).
Regarding claim 9, Anders teaches wherein the switch is a transistor device (transistor 502, fig. 13).
Regarding claim 10, Anders teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the switch is a passive switch configured to activate automatically to redirect the arc current through the alternative current path.
However, in a different embodiment, Anders teaches wherein the switch is a passive switch configured to activate automatically to redirect the arc current through the alternative current path (“An arc clamp module can be passive, wherein it operates without control,” para 0013; taught in figs. 2 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of fig. 13 to include, wherein the switch is a passive switch configured to activate automatically to redirect the arc current through the alternative current path, in view of the teachings of figs. 2 and 9, by using a passive arc clamp module 112 that includes a series of diodes to determine a voltage threshold Vclamp that is compared with a feedback voltage, as taught in fig. 2 and in para 0053, in lieu of using the controller 116 to compare a threshold voltage with the feedback voltage, as taught in figs. 13 and 14, in order to use a passive arc clamp that is independent of any additional controls and that spreads the clamp voltage drop across multiple diodes with a smaller percentage falling across the transistor, which facilitates a method for still achieving closed-loop control but in a more dependable and less complex manner than that shown in fig. 13 (Anders, paras 0051 and 0059).
Regarding claim 11, Anders teaches wherein the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is further configured to adjust an amount of arc current flowing through the alternative current path (step 1403, fig. 14; “Switch 502 can be PWMed,” para 0074; construed as pulse width modulation for turning on and off the current shunted through the transistor 502 when the pulses controlling the transistor 502 are either high or low based on a duty ratio) prior to the short clearance event (“target value 50 µsec before the clearing is detected,” para 0083) in response to the second welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters exceeding the second threshold value (“After a desired amount of time, or until some process parameter is reached, the switch turns off,” para 0074; step 1403 takes place prior to step 1217, fig. 14).
Regarding claim 12, Anders teaches wherein the second welding process parameter (“relies on a timer or process feedback to end the clamping,” para 0079) comprises one or more of a rate of change of voltage, a rate of change of power, or a rate of change of impedance associated with the welding-type system (“dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; change of impedance is not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 13, Anders teaches wherein the second threshold value (“After a desired amount of time, or until some process parameter is reached, the switch turns off,” para 0074) corresponds to a short circuit event (clearing of the short, para 0074).
Regarding claim 23, Anders teaches wherein the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is configured to: receive data (“ICLAMP FEEDBACK,” and “VCLAMP FEEDBACK,” fig. 1) corresponding to the one or more welding process parameters (“current and/or voltage,” para 0016); determine one or more determined welding process parameters based on the data (para 0081); compare each of the one or more determined welding process parameters to a respective corresponding parameter threshold of one or more parameter thresholds (para 0081), wherein each of the one or more parameter thresholds corresponds to a detected short circuit event (step 1211, fig. 14) and a respective welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters (para 0081); detect the short circuit event based on at least one of the determined welding process parameters exceeding the respective corresponding parameter threshold of the one or more parameter thresholds (para 0081); and in response to detecting the short circuit event, control the switch to at least partially close (“arc clamp module arc clamp control module 116 in controller 103 turns on switch 502,” para 0074; step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (“into the clamp,” paras 0079-0080).
Claims 14-15, 17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (WO-2016205476-A1) in view of Hutchison et al. (US-20100006552-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Anders teaches a welding-type system (“Welding System with Arc Control,” title), comprising:
a welding-type power source (Welding/Cladding Power Source, fig. 1) configured to generate output power (“provide welding-type power,” para 0010) for an arc welding process (“arc control circuit,” para 0039);
a wire feeder (wire feeder 104, fig. 1) configured to at least advance (“advance,” para 0005) an electrode wire (welding wire 107, fig. 1) toward a workpiece (work piece 108, fig. 1);
a weld cable (“output weld cables,” para 0044) providing the output power (“between the power source and wire feeder," para 0044; providing output to the welding torch using the weld cable is not explicitly disclosed) to a welding torch (contact tip 106, fig. 1);
one or more sensors (sensors 110 and 114, fig. 1; sensor 706, fig. 7; “current and/or voltage sensor,” para 0016) configured to measure one or more welding process parameters (“feedback parameter,” para 0082; “current feedback,” para 0070; “current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; “clamping time,” para 0083); and
a switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) to provide an alternative current path (path or circuit through the Arc Voltage Clamp 112, fig. 1; “Arc clamp module 112 provides an alternative output current path in parallel with wire cladding 107,” para 0043) for arc current between a primary current path (path through the contact tip 106 to the work piece 108; “arc/short wire workpiece,” para 0046) via the weld cable (“output weld cables,” para 0044) and a workpiece (work piece 108, fig. 1; “TO WORK,” fig. 13), wherein the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is connected to one or more of the one or more sensors (connected through control module 116, figs. 1 and 13, which applies feedback for controlling the current flow through the arc voltage clamp 112 using the gate drive 504), the primary current path (“to wire feeder,” fig. 13), or the workpiece (“to work,” fig. 13), and
a controller (arc clamp module 116, fig. 1; “digital and analog circuitry, discrete or integrated circuitry, microprocessors, DSPs, etc., and software, hardware and firmware, located on one or more boards, used to control a device or module such as a power circuit or arc clamp module,” para 0013; an arc clamp module 116 is construed as controlling the gate drive 504, which is shown in fig. 11) configured to:
in response to predicting the short circuit event (step 1211, fig. 14; clearing the short is construed as the claimed “short circuit event”), control the switch to at least partially close (“arc clamp module arc clamp control dmodule 116 in controller 103 turns on switch 502,” para 0074; step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (“If the short is beginning to clear the control proceeds to step 1403 and 1215 where switch 502 is turned on,” para 0079; “when switch 502 is on, some current is diverted from the weld into the clamp,” para 0071; construed such that the output current is reduced when the switch 502 is on) in response to the beginning (decision point 1211, fig. 14; paras 0076 and 0081) of the short circuit event (“process shorted?,” decision 1203, fig. 14; referring to fig. 14, the “short is beginning to clear” decision point 1211 is prior to step 1403 which takes place after the process is identified as being shorted in step 1203 is construed as the claimed “beginning of a short circuit event”); and
control the switch to at least partially open (“Switch 502 can be PWMed,” para 0074; construed as pulse width modulation for turning on and off the current shunted through the transistor 502 when the pulses controlling the transistor 502 are either high or low based on a duty ratio) during a short circuit phase (short detection and clearing process shown in fig. 14; the switch 502 is activated during step 1403, fig. 14) following onset of the short circuit event (step 1203, fig. 14) to allow all or part of the arc current to flow through the primary current path and the electrode wire (“to maintain a desired minimum current in the weld to prevent arc outages,” para 0074; “when 502 is off, all current goes into the weld,” para 0071).
Anders does not explicitly disclose a controller configured to: during an arc event, identify a short circuit event based on one or more welding process parameters satisfying a short circuit threshold value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Hutchison teaches a controller (controller 807, fig. 8; microprocessor 808, fig. 8) configured to:
during an arc event (Thld and Tback, fig. 1; paras 0050-0051), identify a short circuit event (start of TWET, fig. 1, which is the start of the short circuit) based on one or more welding process parameters (“the time of each arc,” para 0056; construed as the sum of Thld and Tback, fig. 1) satisfying a short circuit threshold value (Tarcset , para 0056; “if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056; the preset nominal value is construed as the claimed “threshold value”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders, in view of the teachings of Hutchison, by using the predictive technique, as taught by Hutchison, to control the logic of the gate drive circuit 504, as taught by Anders, in order to predict the short clearing, so as to control the size of the ball that forms at the end of the wire during short-circuit welding, for the advantage of adequately controlling the burn-off rate during welding, because if the rate is not controlled, then increased spatter will result during welding (Hutchison, paras 0003-0015; Anders references the predictive control taught by Hutchison in para 0004).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Anders in view of Hutchison as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Anders teaches the one or more welding process parameters (“feedback parameter,” para 0082; “current feedback,” para 0070; “current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081; “clamping time,” para 0083) including a voltage (“voltage,” para 0081) or an impedance (not explicitly disclosed) associated with the arc welding process. Additionally, Hutchison teaches wherein the threshold value (“nominal value,” para 0056) is a first threshold value corresponding to an anticipated short circuit event (anticipate clearing of the short is based on the conclusion of TWET, paras 0057-0065; TWET is determined by “TWETOld+WETtgain*(Tarcset− Tarcactual),” para 0056).
Regarding claim 17, Anders teaches wherein the switch (transistor 502, fig. 13) is further configured to at least partially close (step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (para 0079) in response to a second measured welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters (“voltage,” “di/dt,” para 0081) exceeding a second threshold value (“threshold,” para 0081) corresponding to a detected short circuit event (decision “process shorted,” 1203, fig. 14), the one or more second measured welding process parameters comprising at least one of a voltage or a rate of change of the arc current (“voltage,” “di/dt,” para 0081).
Regarding claim 19, Anders teaches further comprising a controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) to generate control signals (“control signals,” para 0013) based on the one or more welding process parameters (“current,” “voltage,” “di/dt,” “dp/dt,” “dv/dt,” para 0081), wherein the switch is configured to fully (“Turn on Switch,” 1403, fig. 14) or partially close (“Regulate Weld Current and Sample Clear Current,” 1215, fig. 4) to adjust the amount of the arc current flowing through the alternative current path based on the control signals (“PWMed,” para 0074).
Regarding claim 22, Anders teaches wherein the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is configured to: receive data (“ICLAMP FEEDBACK,” and “VCLAMP FEEDBACK,” fig. 1) corresponding to the one or more welding process parameters (“current and/or voltage,” para 0016); determine one or more determined welding process parameters based on the data (para 0081); compare each of the one or more determined welding process parameters to a respective corresponding parameter threshold of one or more parameter thresholds (para 0081), wherein each of the one or more parameter thresholds corresponds to a detected short circuit event (step 1211, fig. 14) and a respective welding process parameter of the one or more welding process parameters (para 0081); detect the short circuit event based on at least one of the determined welding process parameters exceeding the respective corresponding parameter threshold of the one or more parameter thresholds (para 0081); and in response to detecting the short circuit event, control the switch to at least partially close (“arc clamp module arc clamp control module 116 in controller 103 turns on switch 502,” para 0074; step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (“into the clamp,” paras 0079-0080).
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (WO-2016205476-A1) in view of Hutchison et al. (US-20100006552-A1) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Aberg (US-20090302014-A1).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Anders in view of Hutchison as set forth above regarding claim 14 partially teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Anders teaches wherein the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is configured to:
receive data (“ICLAMP FEEDBACK,” and “VCLAMP FEEDBACK,” fig. 1) corresponding to the one or more welding process parameters (para 0016);
compare the data to a plurality of threshold values associating welding process parameters to predicted short circuit events (paras 0083-0084).
Additionally, Hutchison teaches a controller (controller 807, fig. 8; microprocessor 808, fig. 8) configured to calculate the representative duration (Tarcset , para 0056; “if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056; the preset nominal value is construed as the claimed “representative duration”) based on an arc duration (Tarcactual, para 0056; “the time of each arc,” para 0056; construed as the sum of Thld and Tback, fig. 1); the comparing a measured arc duration to the representative duration (“if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056); and predict the beginning of the short circuit event based on the measured arc duration exceeding the representative duration (beginning of clearing the short is based on the conclusion of TWET, paras 0057-0065; TWET is determined based on the difference between Tarcset and Tarcactual:“TWETOld+WETtgain*(Tarcset− Tarcactual),” para 0056).
Anders/Hutchison does not explicitly disclose an arc duration of each previous arc event of a plurality of previous arc events.
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Aberg teaches an arc duration (“arc time,” para 0031) of each previous arc event of a plurality of previous arc events (“
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
,
”
para 0029; the index “n” in the equation is construed as the claimed “predetermined” number of previous arc events; this is a difference equation, so past values are reflected in the equation, e.g.,
E
n
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
; substituting into the previous equation,
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
;
R
r
e
g
is used in the calculation for each of the previous arc events; the time at index “n+1” is construed as the current arc event; the equation taught by Aberg in para 0029 resembles the equation taught by Hutchison in para 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders/Hutchison, in view of the teachings of Aberg, to include using the present nominal value for the arc time, as taught by Hutchison, iteratively as a basis for control after each periodic short circuit, as taught by Aberg, in order to regulate the timing of the short circuiting relative to the period time (sum of short circuiting time plus the arc time) at a desired set value, which has a surprisingly good effect on the tolerance of the welding towards different external influencing factors, such as the distance between a contact tip and a workpiece (Aberg, para 0012; Hutchison has a similar teaching, para 0055).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Anders in view of Hutchison as set forth above regarding claim 14 partially teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Anders teaches the controller (clamp control module 116 fig. 1) is configured to: in response to anticipating the short circuit event (“the loop could control such that the weld current tends to a target value 50 µsec before the clearing is detected. The control loop varies the threshold to achieve that target” para 0083), control the switch to at least partially close (step 1403 “Turn on Switch,” fig. 14) to redirect all or part of the arc current through the alternative current path (“If the short is beginning to clear the control proceeds to step 1403 and 1215 where switch 502 is turned on,” para 0079).
Additionally, Hutchison teaches a controller (controller 807, fig. 8; microprocessor 808, fig. 8) configured to calculate the representative duration (Tarcset , para 0056; “if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056; the preset nominal value is construed as the claimed “representative duration”) based on an arc duration (Tarcactual, para 0056; “the time of each arc,” para 0056; construed as the sum of Thld and Tback, fig. 1); in response to determining that a measured arc duration or a calculated arc duration of the one or more welding process parameters has exceeded the representative duration (“if a given arc sequence exceeds the preset nominal value,” para 0056), anticipate an short circuit event (prediction taught in para 0065 and fig. 3 is based on the conclusion of TWET, paras 0057-0065; TWET is determined by “TWETOld+WETtgain*(Tarcset−Tarcactual),” para 0056).
Anders/Hutchison does not explicitly disclose a plurality of arc durationsof previous arc events of one or more previously measured welding process parameters measured by the one or more sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Aberg teaches a plurality of arc durations (“arc time,” para 0031) of previous arc events of one or more previously measured welding process parameters (“
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
,
”
para 0029; the index “n” in the equation is construed as the claimed “predetermined” number of previous arc events; this is a difference equation, so past values are reflected in the equation, e.g.,
E
n
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
; substituting into the previous equation,
E
n
+
1
=
E
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
-
1
-
k
R
r
e
g
-
R
n
;
R
r
e
g
is used in the calculation for each of the previous arc events; the time at index “n+1” is construed as the current arc event; the equation taught by Aberg in para 0029 resembles the equation taught by Hutchison in para 0056) measured by the one or more sensors (para 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders/Hutchison, in view of the teachings of Aberg, to include using the present nominal value for the arc time, as taught by Hutchison, iteratively as a basis for control after each periodic short circuit, as taught by Aberg, in order to regulate the timing of the short circuiting relative to the period time (sum of short circuiting time plus the arc time) at a desired set value, which has a surprisingly good effect on the tolerance of the welding towards different external influencing factors, such as the distance between a contact tip and a workpiece (Aberg, para 0012; Hutchison has a similar teaching, para 0055).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anders et al. (WO-2016205476-A1) in view of Hutchison et al. (US-20100006552-A1) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Peters (US-20150209889-A1, hereinafter Peters ‘889).
Anders teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the welding-type system is configured to perform additive manufacturing operations.
However, in the same field of endeavor of arc welding systems, Peters ‘889 teaches wherein the welding-type system is configured to perform additive manufacturing operations (Para. 0002 and 0036-0037; Figures 1, 19A-19C and 23-24D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Anders to include, wherein the welding-type system is configured to perform additive manufacturing operations, in view of the teachings of Peters ‘889, by using the system, as taught by Anders, for additive manufacturing, as taught by Peters ‘889, because the system, as taught by Anders, redirects current to a bypass path when the wire connects with the molten work piece causing a short circuit, and because Peters ‘889 teaches that is desirable to control the heating current such that no arc is created between the wire and the workpiece when the wire is in contact with a molten puddle since the creation of an arc could prove to be destructive to the workpiece and is thus undesirable (Peters ‘889, paras 0005 and 0045).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 26 February have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Anders combined with Hutchison.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Norrish et al. (US-6512200-B2) teach controlling the arcing phase in a short-circuit welding process.
Huismann et al. (US-6984806-B2) teach controlling the wire feeder to control short circuit welding.
Berg et al. (US-20090302014-A1) teach an invention similar to Aberg.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11 May 2026
Prosecution Insights