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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
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:
Sensing element, resilient member and indicator in claim 1.
First manual operation member, a second manual operation member, a third manual operation member and fourth manual operation member in claim 5.
Receiving member in claim 14.
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. The sensing element is described as an element of a flow sensor (paragraph 0088). The written specification is described as a roll spring assembly 824 and a vertical spring assembly 826 (paragraph 0043, lines 2-4). The written specification defines the indicator as a light emitting diode (paragraph 0032, lines 4-6).
The written specification defines the manual operation members to be a potentiometer knob (paragraph 0041, lines 1-3), switches (paragraph 0028) and push/pull buttons (paragraph 0012). Receiving member is described as a member 107 capable of receiving a gas nozzle (Fig. 1). The written specification defines the resilient member as a spring assembly 824 and spring assembly 826 (paragraph 0043, lines 2-4).
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-13,17 and 20-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salisch (US 8,710,396) in view Schmall et al (US2008/0040940) in view of Nettesheim et al (US2015/0069911) in view of Eglseder et al (US8210025).
With regards to claim 1, Salsich et al discloses a nozzle gas flow sensor (sensing device 60b on nozzle 48 for measuring gas pressure, Fig. 3), comprising:
a housing having a sensing element configured to detect a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from a nozzle of a torch (torch 16 having a handle portion 29 with the sensing device 60b which detects a gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3), the housing being configured to engage the nozzle (handle portion 29 engages nozzle 48, Fig. 3);
circuitry configured to receive sensor readings from the sensing element (controller 13B receiving readings from sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), each reading indicative of a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from the nozzle (each reading of sensing device 60B is the gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3); and evaluate stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas with a window of operation based on the sensor readings to output an evaluation result indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation (operation described in Fig. 5 establishes a stable gas flow within the time the trigger of the torch is pulled, Fig. 5);
and an indicator indicative of the evaluation result (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
Salisch et al does not teach a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing.
Schmall et al teaches a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing (a contact spring 20 that controls the distance of sensor 16, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al before him or her, to modify the housing of Salsich et al to include the spring of Schmall et al because the spring of Schmall et al allows for enhanced sensor measurement during the work process of a torch.
Salsich et al and Lindsay et al does not teach a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle.
Nettesheim et al teaches a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle (flow sensor 43 has a housing that is imbedded into and to receive outlet nozzle 4, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al to include the sensor of Nettesheim et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides better pressure sensing for a welding torch.
Salsich et al, Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al does not teach the housing separate from the torch, a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element, and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone.
Eglseder et al teaches the housing separate from the torch (measuring device 30 pressurized air guidance 42 is separate from gas nozzle 27, Fig. 6), a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element (housing 44 coupled to guidance 42 to receive and engage a front end of gas nozzle 27 and to position the front end of the nozzle 27 with respect to sensor 31, Fig. 6), and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone (movable ring 46 controls movement when the nozzle 27 is received in the housing 44, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al,Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al,Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al to include the housing of Eglseder et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides realistic measurement of conditions the torch is under during a welding process.
With regards to claim 2, Salsich et al discloses an indicator indicative of a status of the flow rate of shielding gas (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 3, Salsich et al discloses wherein the window of operation comprises one or more parameters, at least one of the one or more parameters being adjustable (window includes an increase or decrease of valve drive, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 4, Salsich et al discloses wherein the window of operation is defined by at least a minimum flow rate, a maximum flow rate, a flow rate band between the minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate (set under pressure flag 83 and set over pressure flag 82, Fig. 5), and wherein at least one of the minimum flow rate, the maximum flow rate, the flow rate band, and/or the center point of the flow rate band is adjustable (min and max are dependent on the welding process selected, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 5, Salisch et al discloses wherein the nozzle gas flow sensor is operated with a first manual operation member for adjusting the minimum flow rate (operating mode selector 37 is used to select a desired mode of operation of the plasma cutting system 10 wherein each mode of operation corresponds to a specific set of gas pressure and gas flow set points, col 3, lines 41-45).
With regards to claim 6, Salsich et al discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to: compare the flow rate of the shielding gas with each of the minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate (set under pressure flag 83 and set over pressure flag 82, Fig. 5); and determine whether the following conditions (1) and (2) have continued at least for a threshold time frame (determine if the drive signal has reached its max at a certain time to set a pressure flag, Fig. 5):
(1) the flow rate of the shielding gas > the minimum flow rate (set over pressure flag 82, Fig. 5);
(2) the flow rate of the shielding gas < the maximum flow rate (set under pressure flag 83, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 7, Salisch et al discloses an indicator indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation, the indicator being enabled in the case where it is determined that the conditions (1) and (2) have continued at least for a threshold time frame (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 8, Salisch et al discloses a first status indicator for indicating that the flow rate of the shielding gas is at or above the minimum flow rate within the window of operation (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 9, Salisch et al discloses wherein the first status indicator is a visual indicator, and wherein the circuitry is configured to control a blinking frequency of the visual indicator depending on a difference between the flow rate of the shielding gas and the center point of the flow rate band (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36 and the frequency of the indicator light 36 will depend on the input pressure from the controller, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 10, Salisch et al discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to determine the minimum flow rate and maximum flow rated based on the flow rate band and the center point of the flow rate band (step 79 determines the min or max pressure limits and then set a flag 82 or 83, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 11, Salisch et al discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to in response to a teach input, set the flow rate of the shielding gas read by the sensing element as the center point of the flow rate band (step 92 is considered a teaching step since it defines what the critical pressure level value is, when step 81 takes place, the set point pressure is considered to be the pressure level as read, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 12, Salsich et al discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to start analysis of the sensor reading at a predetermined timing (pressure level is checked and compared to set point in step 74 after trigger is pulled in step 71, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 13, Salsich et al discloses wherein the housing accommodates at least one of the sensing element or the circuitry (handle portion 29 accommodates at least one of the sensing device 60B and controller 13B, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 16, Schmall et al teaches the resilient member comprises a spring member (a contact spring 20 that controls the distance of sensor 16, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 17, Salsich et al discloses wherein the sensing element is mounted on the housing to sense the flow rate of the shielding gas ejected to an inner space of the housing (sensing device 60B is mounted inside handle portion 29 to sense the flow rate of shielding gas injected into an inner space of the handle portion 29 to nozzle 48, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 20, Salsich et al discloses a method for a nozzle gas flow sensor (method of using sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving sensor readings from a sensing element of the nozzle gas flow sensor (controller 13B receiving data from sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), wherein the nozzle gas flow sensor comprises: a housing having a sensing element configured to detect a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from a nozzle of a torch (torch 16 having a handle portion 29 with the sensing device 60b which detects a gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3), the housing being configured to engage the nozzle (handle portion 29 engages nozzle 48, Fig. 3);
circuitry configured to receive sensor readings from the sensing element (controller 13B receiving readings from sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), each reading indicative of a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from the nozzle (each reading of sensing device 60B is the gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3); and evaluate stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas with a window of operation based on the sensor readings to output an evaluation result indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation (operation described in Fig. 5 establishes a stable gas flow within the time the trigger of the torch is pulled, Fig. 5);
and an indicator indicative of the evaluation result (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1);
evaluating the stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas with the window of operation based on the sensor readings to output an evaluation result indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation to the indicator (operation described in Fig. 5 establishes a stable gas flow within the time the trigger of the torch is pulled and indicates out of spec pressure to an indicator light 36, Fig. 1 and 5).
Salisch et al does not teach a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing.
Schmall et al teaches a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing (a contact spring 20 that controls the distance of sensor 16, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al before him or her, to modify the housing of Salsich et al to include the spring of Schmall et al because the spring of Schmall et al allows for enhanced sensor measurement during the work process of a torch.
Salsich et al and Lindsay et al does not teach a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle.
Nettesheim et al teaches a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle (flow sensor 43 has a housing that is imbedded into and to receive outlet nozzle 4, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al,Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al to include the sensor of Nettesheim et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides better pressure sensing for a welding torch.
Salsich et al, Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al does not teach the housing separate from the torch, a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element, and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone.
Eglseder et al teaches the housing separate from the torch (measuring device 30 pressurized air guidance 42 is separate from gas nozzle 27, Fig. 6), a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element (housing 44 coupled to guidance 42 to receive and engage a front end of gas nozzle 27 and to position the front end of the nozzle 27 with respect to sensor 31, Fig. 6), and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone (movable ring 46 controls movement when the nozzle 27 is received in the housing 44, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al,Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al,Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al to include the housing of Eglseder et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides realistic measurement of conditions the torch is under during a welding process.
With regards to claim 21, Salsich et al discloses setting the window of operation (pressure level is checked at step 74 after the trigger is pulled at step 71, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 22, Salsich et al discloses comparing the flow rate of the shielding gas with each of the minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate (set under pressure flag 83 and set over pressure flag 82, Fig. 5); and determining whether the following conditions (1) and (2) have continued at least for a threshold time frame (determine if the drive signal has reached its max at a certain time to set a pressure flag, Fig. 5):
(1) the flow rate of the shielding gas > the minimum flow rate (set over pressure flag 82, Fig. 5);
(2) the flow rate of the shielding gas < the maximum flow rate (set under pressure flag 83, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 23, Salisch et al discloses operating on an indicator indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation based on determination of whether the conditions (1) and (2) have continued at least for a threshold time frame (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 24, Salisch et al discloses operating on a first status indicator for indicating that the flow rate of the shielding gas is at or above the minimum flow rate within the window of operation (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 25, Salisch et al discloses controlling a blinking frequency of the first status indicator depending on a difference between the flow rate of the shielding gas and a center point of a flow rate band between the minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36 and the frequency of the indicator light 36 will depend on the input pressure from the controller, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 26, Salisch et al discloses controlling a blinking frequency of the second status indicator depending on a difference between the flow rate of the shielding gas and a center point of a flow rate band between the minimum flow rate and the maximum flow rate (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36 and the frequency of the indicator light 36 will depend on the input pressure from the controller, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 27, Salisch et al discloses determining the minimum flow rate and maximum flow rated based on the flow rate band and the center point of the flow rate band (step 79 determines the min or max pressure limits and then set a flag 82 or 83, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 28, Salisch et al discloses in response to a teach input, set the flow rate of the shielding gas read by the sensing element as the center point of the flow rate band (step 92 is considered a teaching step since it defines what the critical pressure level value is, when step 81 takes place, the set point pressure is considered to be the pressure level as read, Fig. 5).
With regards to claim 29, Salisch et al discloses operating a visual indicator indicating the evaluation result (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36 and the frequency of the indicator light 36 will depend on the input pressure from the controller, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 30, Salsich et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (controller 13b of a torch 16, Fig. 3), which when executed by a computer cause the computer to execute:
a method for a nozzle gas flow sensor (method of using sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving sensor readings from a sensing element of the nozzle gas flow sensor (controller 13B receiving data from sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), wherein the nozzle gas flow sensor comprises: a housing having a sensing element configured to detect a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from a nozzle of a torch (torch 16 having a handle portion 29 with the sensing device 60b which detects a gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3), the housing being configured to engage the nozzle (handle portion 29 engages nozzle 48, Fig. 3);
circuitry configured to receive sensor readings from the sensing element (controller 13B receiving readings from sensing device 60B, Fig. 3), each reading indicative of a flow rate of shielding gas ejected from the nozzle (each reading of sensing device 60B is the gas pressure entering nozzle 48, Fig. 3); and evaluate stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas with a window of operation based on the sensor readings to output an evaluation result indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation (operation described in Fig. 5 establishes a stable gas flow within the time the trigger of the torch is pulled, Fig. 5);
and an indicator indicative of the evaluation result (controller 13A, is also configured to notify the operator that there is an out-of-spec input pressure via an indicator light 36, Fig. 1);
evaluating the stability of the flow rate of the shielding gas with the window of operation based on the sensor readings to output an evaluation result indicative of stable gas flow within the window of operation to the indicator (operation described in Fig. 5 establishes a stable gas flow within the time the trigger of the torch is pulled and indicates out of spec pressure to an indicator light 36, Fig. 1 and 5).
Salisch et al does not teach a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing.
Schmall et al teaches a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing (a contact spring 20 that controls the distance of sensor 16, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al before him or her, to modify the housing of Salsich et al to include the spring of Schmall et al because the spring of Schmall et al allows for enhanced sensor measurement during the work process of a torch.
Salsich et al and Lindsay et al does not teach a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle.
Nettesheim et al teaches a nozzle gas flow sensor having a housing to receive the nozzle (flow sensor 43 has a housing that is imbedded into and to receive outlet nozzle 4, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al,Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al and Lindsay et al to include the sensor of Nettesheim et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides better pressure sensing for a welding torch.
Salsich et al, Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al does not teach the housing separate from the torch, a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element, and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone.
Eglseder et al teaches the housing separate from the torch (measuring device 30 pressurized air guidance 42 is separate from gas nozzle 27, Fig. 6), a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element (housing 44 coupled to guidance 42 to receive and engage a front end of gas nozzle 27 and to position the front end of the nozzle 27 with respect to sensor 31, Fig. 6), and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone (movable ring 46 controls movement when the nozzle 27 is received in the housing 44, Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al before him or her, to modify the sensor of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al and Nettesheim et al to include the housing of Eglseder et al because the sensor being on the outlet nozzle provides realistic measurement of conditions the torch is under during a welding process.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al as applied to claim 1, in further view of Lindsay et al (US20140061170).
With regards to claim 14, Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al does not teach a receiving member for receiving the nozzle of the torch with respect to the sensing element.
Lindsay et al teaches a receiving member for receiving the nozzle of the torch with respect to the sensing element (the plasma arc torch 100 can include one or more consumables including the nozzle 110, the electrode 105, the shield 125, the inner retaining cap 115 and an outer retaining cap 302 wherein a signal device is retained, paragraph 0065, lines 2-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al, Eglseder et al and Lindsay et al before him or her, to modify the nozzle of Salsich et al, Schmall et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al to include the retaining cap of Lindsay et al because the retaining cap allows for an enhanced mechanical configuration for a welding torch.
With regards to claim 15, Lindsay et al teaches wherein the torch is a welding torch, wherein the receiving member is detachably attached to a housing and wherein the housing is installable on the welding equipment (torch 100 is part of a thermal processing system 500 which is attached to a gantry 522, Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al as applied to claims 13 and 17, in further view of Kyungsoo (KR200436945).
With regards to claim 18, Salsich et al, Lindsay et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al does not teach a removable filter mounted on the housing for filtering the debris to protect the sensing element.
Kyungsoo teaches a removable filter mounted on the housing for filtering the debris to protect the sensing element (welding debris sequestration stopper 8 mounted on the welding tip cover 5 for filtering debris to protect internal components of a torch, Fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Salsich et al, Schmall et al, Nettesheim et al, Eglseder et al and Kyungsoo before him or her, to modify the nozzle of Salsich et al, Schmall et al, Nettesheim et al and Eglseder et al to include the welding debris sequestration stopper of Kyungsoo because the combination allows for the prevention of material buildup in a welding torch.
With regards to claim 19, Kyungsoo teaches wherein the housing has a plug for removing debris from the inner space of the housing (welding debris sequestration stopper 8 mounted on the welding tip cover 5 for filtering debris to protect internal components of a torch, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the amended features of claims 1 and 16.
Examiners response: Claims 1 and 20 has been amended to include “a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element”. Eglseder et al teaches the housing separate from the torch (measuring device 30 pressurized air guidance 42 is separate from gas nozzle 27, Fig. 6), a flow cone coupled to the housing and configured to receive and engage a front end of the nozzle of the torch and to position the front end of the nozzle with respect to the sensing element (housing 44 coupled to guidance 42 to receive and engage a front end of gas nozzle 27 and to position the front end of the nozzle 27 with respect to sensor 31, Fig. 6), and the resilient member controls movement when the nozzle is received in the flow cone (movable ring 46 controls movement when the nozzle 27 is received in the housing 44, Fig. 6).Applicant argues that Salsich does not disclose evaluating a stability of the flow rate of shielding gas. Whether the sensor of Salisch measures plasma gas or shielding gas, the claim limits the sensor to just a nozzle gas flow sensor. Applicant argues about the limitation of the resilient member. Schmall et al teaches a resilient member coupled to the housing and configured to provide controlled movement of the housing (a contact spring 20 that controls the distance of sensor 16, Fig. 1). The contact spring 20 of Schmall et al regulates the movement of the entire torch 10 which includes cap 16 which is a sensor connected to sensor electronics 22 (Fig. 1).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761