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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 11/11/2025 are acknowledged and entered. According to the Amendments to the claims, claims 4 and 13 has /have been amended, claim 15 were previously cancelled, claim 6 has /have been cancelled, claim 21 has /have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-21 are pending in the application. An action on the merits for claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-21 are as follow. The previous 112 (d) Claim Rejections are withdrawn in accordance with applicant's amendment to the claims with no new matter added.
The previous office action sent out on 08/12/2025, which was examined by examiner Eric Stapleton. The present application is now being examined by examiner Kuangyue Chen as follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, 14 and 17 recite the limitation "welding-type" in various places respectively, rendering these claims indefinite. It was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. There isn’t any definition of what this "type" means in the specification. It is suggested Applicant consider simply reciting "welding". According to MPEP 2173.05(B) III. E.: The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8-15, 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Few (US 2004/0089371 Al).
Regarding Independent Claim 8, Few discloses a welding-type system, comprising:
a user interface (control panel 130, [0079, 0176], Figs 1-2, 32-34) configured to receive a selection from a user of a welding process, a workpiece position, a tool type, a fluid tank size (the new fluid tank 42 used fluid tank 40… depending on the tank capacity, [0112]), a fluid tank serial number, a fluid tank brand, or a target use time (see [0059-0090, 0108, 0111, 0116, 0120 and 0176-0197], Figs 1-7 and 32-36); and
a smart regulator (an integrated manifold assembly 26, [0058]; manifold body 31, [0059]; manifold body 231, [0127]; manifold 426, [0147, 0176]) for use in a welding-type system (Note: the recitation of "for use in a welding-type system" is interpreted as intended use), comprising:
an inlet (a return port 34, and a fresh fluid supply port 38, [0060]; a pressure port 52, [0062]; Fig 6) configured for fluid communication with a tank outlet (supply conduit 41, [0096], Fig 6) of a fluid tank (fluid tanks 40, 42, 740, 742, [0061, 0176], Figs 6 & 32),
an outlet (an exhaust port 32, a drain port 36, a suction port 50, [0060, 0062], Fig 6) configured for fluid communication with the inlet (see Fig 6), and
a valve (solenoid valve 70, solenoid valve 84, [0066, 0070], Fig 6) configured to adjustably restrict fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet based on the welding process (the fluid circuit 30 and common pump 24 enable such draining or dumping of the used fluid tank, [0113]; If a used fluid tank overflow condition is anticipated, the processor 28 disables the drain button 227 on the pendant, [0140]), the workpiece position, the tool type, the fluid tank size (the new fluid tank 42 used fluid tank 40… depending on the tank capacity, [0112], Fig 6), the fluid tank serial number, the fluid tank brand, or the target use time selected by the user (control panel 130, [0079, 0176], Figs 1-2, 32-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Few with different embodiments as shown above; because Few teaches, in Abstract, of providing an excellent control system with dielectric sensing capabilities to monitor the fluid level within the tanks and, based upon such fluid levels or relative changes thereto, regulate the flow of fluid through selective operation of a fluid flow rate control device.
Claim 9, where the smart regulator further comprises:
a sensor (fluid sensors 100, 102, 700 and 702, [0077, 0176], Figs 6 and 32-35) configured to measure a fluid flow characteristic at the inlet or at the outlet (see Figs 6 and 32), and
regulator circuitry (PLB 781 which includes a quantity calculator component 783, [0190]) configured to transmit a measurement signal representative of the fluid flow characteristic or a fluid flow rate (transducer converts the mechanical movement to an electrical signal indicative of the level of the fluid, [0008], a fluid flow rate control device, [0014]; Figs 1-7 and 32-36).
Claim 10, further comprises:
a remote device (controller 28, [0058], controller 728, [0176]) configured to receive the measurement signal, the remote device comprising device circuitry configured to determine a remaining percentage of fluid in the fluid tank based on the measurement signal and a full tank pressure (transmits a signal proportional to the level of the fluid, [0108], Figs 1-7 and 32-36; Note: Official notice is taken that percentages were well-known in the art and a percentage would have been obvious in order to provide a convenient way of representing a fraction),
the user interface being further configured to generate an output representative of the remaining percentage of fluid in the fluid tank (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Few discloses a method, comprising:
measuring, via at least one sensor (fluid sensors 100, 102 in Fig 6, and 700 and 702 in Fig 32) of a smart regulator (an integrated manifold assembly 26, [0058], Fig 3; manifold body 31, [0059], Fig 6; manifold body 231, [0127], Fig 7; and manifold 426, [0147, 0176], Fig 17), a fluid flow characteristic at an inlet of the smart regulator or at an outlet of the smart regulator (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]);
transmitting, via regulator circuitry of the smart regulator, a measurement signal representative of the fluid flow characteristic or a fluid flow rate to a remote device (controller 28, fluid tank sensors 100 and 102) (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]);
determining, via device circuitry (controller 28, fluid tank sensors 100 and 102) of the remote device, a remaining fluid amount in the fluid tank based on the measurement signal and a full tank pressure (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]); and
generating an output via a user interface of the remote device, the output being representative of the remaining fluid amount (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Few with different embodiments as shown above; because Few teaches, in Abstract, of providing an excellent control system with dielectric sensing capabilities to monitor the fluid level within the tanks and, based upon such fluid levels or relative changes thereto, regulate the flow of fluid through selective operation of a fluid flow rate control device.
Claim 12, wherein the output comprises a percentage (Note: Official notice is taken that
percentages were well-known in the art and a percentage would have been obvious in order to provide a convenient way of representing a fraction such as that disclosed in [0108]);
Claim 13, wherein the remote device comprises a welding-type power supply, a wire feeder, a welding-type tool, a mobile device, a smart watch, a pendant, or a computing system (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]).
Claim 14, wherein the outlet of the smart regulator is configured for fluid communication with the inlet and with the remote device (controller 28, fluid tank sensors 100 and 102), a welding-type power supply, a wire feeder, or a welding tool.
Claim 15, further comprising:
receiving a tank selection (the operator may select OP6 using the options menu button 142 and then depress the start button 144, [0116]) via the user interface (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]); and
determining the full tank pressure based on the tank selection, the tank selection comprising a fluid tank size (the new fluid tank 42 used fluid tank 40… depending on the tank capacity, [0112], Fig 6), a fluid tank serial number, or a fluid tank brand (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]).
Claim 17, further comprising:
determining, via the device circuitry (controller 28, fluid tank sensors 100 and 102, Fig 6), whether the remaining fluid amount is below a threshold (the minimum fluid heights are known… a predetermined base amount, [0213]);
in response to determining the remaining fluid amount is below the threshold,
generating, via the device circuitry, a disabling output to disable a piece of
welding-type equipment (fluid servicing apparatus 720, [0176]. Note: under the broadest reasonable interpretation of welding-type equipment includes system 720) in fluid communication with the outlet of the smart regulator (manifolds 26, 231, 426, manifold body 31; see [0213]),
accessing, via the device circuitry, a website or service where more fluid can be ordered (Note: this claim limitation is recited in the alternative with respect to the claimed limitation "generating, via the device circuitry, a disabling output ... " disclosed by Few as set forth above),
outputting, via the user interface, a link to the website or service where more fluid can be ordered (Note: this claim limitation is recited in the alternative with respect to the claimed "generating, via the device circuitry, a disabling output ... " disclosed by Few as set forth above), or
automatically ordering more fluid (Note: this claim limitation is recited in the alternative with respect to the claimed limitation "generating, via the device circuitry, a disabling output ... " disclosed by Few as set forth above).
Claim 18, further comprising:
receiving, via the user interface, a selection from a user of a welding process, a workpiece position, a tool type, a fluid tank size, a fluid tank serial number, a fluid tank brand, or a target use time (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]);
sending, via the device circuitry, a control signal to the smart regulator based on the welding process, the workpiece position, the tool type, the fluid tank size, the fluid tank serial number, the fluid tank brand, or the target use time selected by the user (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]); and
adjusting, via a valve (solenoid valve 70, solenoid valve 84, [0066, 0070], Fig 6) of the smart regulator, the fluid flow rate between the inlet and outlet of the smart regulator in response to the control signal (see Figs 1-7 and 32-36; [0059-0090, 0108, 0111, 0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]).
To the extent that it may be argued that a single embodiment of Few does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter, such as a valve configured to adjustably restrict fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet based on the welding process (the fluid circuit 30 and common pump 24 enable such draining or dumping of the used fluid tank, [0113]; If a used fluid tank overflow condition is anticipated, the processor 28 disables the drain button 227 on the pendant, [0140]), the workpiece position, the tool type, the fluid tank size, the fluid tank serial number, the fluid tank brand, or the target use time selected by the user; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fig. 1 embodiment by the para. [0113] embodiment in order to avoid overflow.
Claim 21, wherein the inlet of the smart regulator is configured for fluid communication with a tank outlet (supply conduit 41, [0096], Fig 6) of a fluid tank (fluid tanks 40, 42, 740, 742, [0061, 0176], Figs 6 & 32), the outlet (an exhaust port 32, a drain port 36, a suction port 50, [0060, 0062], Fig 6) of the smart regulator is configured for fluid communication with the inlet of the smart regulator (see Fig 6), and the smart regulator further comprises a valve (solenoid valve 70, solenoid valve 84, [0066, 0070], Fig 6) configured to adjustably restrict fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet of the smart regulator (To the extent that it may be argued that a single embodiment of Few does not disclose all of the claimed subject matter, such as a valve configured to adjustably restrict fluid flow between the inlet and the outlet based on the welding process, the workpiece position, the tool type, the fluid tank size, the fluid tank serial number, the fluid tank brand, or the target use time selected by the user; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Fig. 1 embodiment by the para. [0113] embodiment in order to avoid overflow).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Few (US 2004/0089371 Al) in view of Grothaus et al. (US 20100238013 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Few discloses substantially all of the features of the claimed invention as set forth above. Few does not explicitly disclose claim 19, determining, via the device circuitry, an estimated time before the remaining fluid amount reaches a threshold based on the remaining fluid amount and the fluid flow rate, and generating an estimated time output, via the user interface, based on the estimated time.
However, Grothaus discloses: claim 19: the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining, via the device circuitry, an estimated time (times shown in Fig 6; [0027-0029]) before the remaining fluid amount reaches a threshold based on the remaining fluid amount and the fluid flow rate (see Figs 5-6; [0027-0033]), and
generating output (see outputs in Figs 5-6), via the user interface, based on the estimated time (Figs 5-6; [0027-0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify/ add Few with Grothaus et al.’s further teaching of claim 19; in order for an operator to be alerted more accurately and over a longer period of remaining operating time to tank empty.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-5 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The same prior art used under the Non-Final Rejection been able to cover all the limitations of the amended claims.
A. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely “Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill would understand with reasonable certainty the bounds of the claims reciting "welding-type" when read in light of Applicant's Specification, thereby satisfying the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)”.
The examiner’s response: There isn’t any definition of what this "type" means in the specification, it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. According to MPEP 2173.05(B) III. E.: The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). Likewise, the phrase "ZSM-5-type aluminosilicate zeolites" was held to be indefinite because it was unclear what "type" was intended to convey. The interpretation was made more difficult by the fact that the zeolites defined in the dependent claims were not within the genus of the type of zeolites defined in the independent claim. Ex parte Attig, 7 USPQ2d 1092 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
B. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely regarding claim 8 “While Few does show and discuss valves 70/84, a used fluid tank 40, and a control panel 130 with an OP6 option by which an operator may check a remaining capacity in the used fluid tank 40 (which the Office Action alleges is a selection of a fluid tank size), Few does not disclose or suggest its valves 70/84 are controlled (or adjustably restrict fluid flow) based on the selection of the OP6 option by the operator”.
The examiner’s response: Few teaches exactly a welding-type system as claimed under Independent Claim 8, fully discloses all the recited limitations of 8 as set forth in this office action shown above. Since the prior art teach all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112); and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
C. The applicant's argument on Remarks, namely regarding claims 11-15 and 17-19 “Few does not disclose or suggest measuring, via at least one sensor of a smart regulator, a fluid flow characteristic at an inlet of a smart regulator or at an outlet of the smart regulator, as set forth in claims 11-15 and 17-19”, and “neither of Few nor Grothaus teach or suggest the above cited limitations of claims 11-15 and 17-19, it stands to reason that a hypothetical combination of Few and/or Grothaus would fail to suggest to a person of ordinary skill the obviousness of claims 11-15 and 17-19”.
The examiner’s response: Few teaches exactly a method, comprising: measuring, via at least one sensor (fluid sensors 100, 102 in Fig 6, and 700 and 702 in Fig 32) of a smart regulator (an integrated manifold assembly 26, [0058], Fig 3; manifold body 31, [0059], Fig 6; manifold body 231, [0127], Fig 7; and manifold 426, [0147, 0176], Fig 17), a fluid flow characteristic at an inlet of the smart regulator or at an outlet of the smart regulator (see Fig. 1-7 and 32-36, [0019, 0059-0090, 0099-0101, 0108-0116, 0120 and 0176-0197]) as claimed; disclosed all the recited limitations of 11 as set forth in this office action shown above, providing an excellent control system with dielectric sensing capabilities to monitor the fluid level within the tanks and, based upon such fluid levels or relative changes thereto, regulate the flow of fluid through selective operation of a fluid flow rate control device (see Abstract); also, during examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention”; see MPEP 2173.01(I). Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights