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
The amendment presents claim 13 as amended, claims 10 and 14 as cancelled, and claims 21-22 as withdrawn. Claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In this case, Hayes is not relied upon to teach the amended limitation of the remote control circuitry being “remote from the welding power supply and the auxiliary device.”
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.
Claims 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (6504131) in view of Denis et al (2015/0273611)
Regarding claim 13, Hayes teaches a remote device (defined by the structure below) for monitoring or controlling a welding power supply (102 as shown in fig.1) comprising:
a transceiver (112 as shown in fig.1) configured to receive first wireless signals (4:35-44; wireless connection) from a remote computer system (116 as shown in fig.1), wherein the first wireless signals include data corresponding to one or more software updates associated with the welding power supply (102 as shown in fig.1) and an auxiliar device (one of the components such as 106 and 104 as shown in fig.1)(abstract, lines 1-6) (col.2, lines 15-35 and col.3, lines 35-50)(each components includes control system with software and the main control check if software updates needed in each components) (3:11-24; The CAN allows for communication between and control of (instructions, feedback, etc.) components in a welding type system. Each components includes a controller and software that controls that module); and
a remote control circuitry (circuitry running the boot loader software update, including the various hardware of each component) configured to:
receive the data in the first wireless signals from the transceiver (112 as shown in fig.1);
identify a welding power supply software update and an auxiliar device software update of the one or more software updates within the data (col.2, lines 15-35 and col.3, lines 35-50)(each components includes control system with software and the main control check if software updates needed in each components); and
control the transceiver to transmit a second
control the transceiver (112 as shown in fig.1) to transmit a third
Hayes teaches substantially the claimed invention except for the second and third signals being wireless (Hayes illustrates wired connection). However, it is noted that sending/receiving control signals between electronic devices can be accomplished either with an electromechanical connection (i.e., a wired connection) or with a wireless connection.
Additionally, Hayes is silent on the remote control circuitry being remote from the welding power supply and the auxiliary device.
Denis relates to systems and methods for wireless control of a welding power supply and teaches a remote control circuitry (Fig. 4; 30) wirelessly coupled to the welding power supply (12) such that the remote control circuitry (30) is configured to send wireless control signals (via 122).
Denis also teaches the remote control circuitry (Fig. 4; 30) being remote from the welding power supply (12) and the auxiliary device (auxiliary equipment 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayes with Denis, by replacing the electromechanical, or wired, connection of Hayes, with wireless connection of Denis, for in doing so would provide an alternative and well-known means for connecting a remote control circuity to a welding power supply.
Additionally, using a wireless connection in lieu of a wired connection for the purpose of receiving/transmitting control signals would have been obvious as:
Both wireless and electromechanical connections address a recognized problem of receiving and transmitting control signals between electronic devices,
There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this problem, and
One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued using wireless connection technology with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Further, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hayes with Denis, by replacing the position of the remote control circuitry of Hayes, with remote control circuitry being remote from the power supply and auxiliary device of Denis, for in doing so would provide an alternative remote control circuity to a welding power supply/auxiliary device (i.e., one that is external to the power supply). Furthermore, by having the remote control circuitry being physically separate from the welding power supply and auxiliary device would allow for such circuitry to be portable, which would allow a user to more readily carry and use such remote control circuitry. See MPEP 2144.04-V-A.
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches wherein the transceiver (Hayes, 112 as shown in fig.1) is further configured to receive one or more fourth wireless signals from the welding power supply (102 as shown in fig.1) (Hayes, as modified to use wireless communication) that include data corresponding to one or more software updates associated with an auxiliary device (Hayes; col.3, lines 10-40 and col.4, lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches wherein the transceiver (Hayes; 112 as shown in fig.1) further configured to receive the first wireless signals from a second auxiliary device that include data corresponding to the one or more software updates associated with the welding power supply (see claim 13 above, see auxiliary devices 104 and 106).
Regarding claim 17, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches a memory storage device, wherein the remote control circuitry is further configured to: store the data corresponding to the one or more software updates in the memory storage device (Hayes; col.5, lines 20-40); receive an input from the remote computing system to transmit the data; and control the transceiver to transmit the data to the remote computing system (116 as shown in fig.1) (col.3, lines 10-40 and col.4, lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 18, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches wherein the first wireless signals further include data corresponding to one or more diagnostic parameters comprising one or more of a voltage, a current, a power value, an engine status, or a welding process (Hayes; col.3, lines 10-40 and col.4, lines 30-45).
Regarding claim 19, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 13, and further teaches wherein the remote control circuitry further comprises a network interface to connect to a remote computing system via one or more of LAN, WAN, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, or cellular networks (Hayes; col.4, lines 30-45) (see also Denis; para. 0023).
Regarding claim 20, the primary combination teaches each claimed limitation, as applied in claim 19, and further teaches wherein the remote control circuitry is further configured to transmit data from the memory storage to the remote computing system in real-time (Hayes; col.5, lines 20-40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 include allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose the combination of features recited in independent claim 1 including a remote control circuitry configured to “transmit information to and receive information from an auxiliary device as third wireless signals…transmit, as fifth wireless signals, the second data from the welding power supply to the auxiliary device.”
Further, there does not appear to be any evidence of record that would suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, or otherwise consider it obvious, to modify the prior art of record and arrive at the claimed invention.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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 at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761