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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "the carriage guiding seam" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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 57-58, 72-73, and 84-85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2.
Regarding claim 57, Dugan discloses a welding carriage, comprising: a body (Fig. 1, Ref. 1) comprising a base (Fig. 5, Ref. 3) having a first side and a second side transversely opposite the first side (Fig. 1 as annotated below); the wheeled suspension comprising a plurality of wheels comprising a carriage guide wheel (Fig. 6, Ref. 14) rollably mounted at the first side of the body (Col. 5, Lines 59-63; Col. 4, Lines 22-27) and a support wheel (Fig. 6, Ref. 13) rollably mounted at the second side of the body transversely opposite the carriage guide wheel (Fig. 1; Ref. 26); welding equipment mounted to the body (Fig. 1; Ref. 17), the welding equipment comprising a welding torch (Fig. 1; Ref. 17); and a motor coupled to drive at least one of the carriage guide wheel (Col. 5; Lines 51-61) or the support wheel of the wheeled suspension.
PNG
media_image1.png
650
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Dugan discloses a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base (Fig. 6; Refs. 12, 13, 14), Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base with the guide and support wheels, and the carriage guide wheel comprising a rigid disc having a tapered rim.
However in the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base with the guide and support wheels (Fig. 3B), and the carriage guide wheel comprising a rigid disc having a tapered rim (Fig. 3B, Ref. 36b) to grip the workpiece.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Doskocz to grip the workpiece (Doskocz Col. 5, Lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 58, Dugan discloses a torch alignment assembly (Fig. 1, Ref. 18) mounted to the body, wherein the welding torch is mounted to and supported by the torch alignment assembly, and wherein the torch alignment assembly is operable to vary alignment between a tip of the welding torch and a rolling direction of the carriage guide wheel (Col. 5, Lines 51-67 through Col. 6, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 72, Dugan discloses wherein the carriage guide wheel is a first carriage guide wheel (Col. 5, Lines 59-63; Col. 4, Lines 22-27, and the support wheel is a first support wheel (Fig. 1; Ref. 26); the plurality of wheels further comprises: a second carriage guide wheel rollably mounted at the first side of the body and a second support wheel rollably mounted at the second side of the body transversely opposite the second carriage guide wheel, the second carriage guide wheel comprising a second generally circular disc formed of the rigid material, the second disc having a second tapered rim; the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel are arranged to roll one- after-the other along a common rolling direction; and the first tapered rim and the second tapered rim have a common cross sectional profile (It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the number of wheels since that devices that move generally have 4 wheels for stability).
While Dugan discloses a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base (Fig. 6; Refs. 12, 13, 14), Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base with the guide and support wheels, and the carriage guide wheel comprising a rigid disc having a tapered rim.
However in the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches a wheeled suspension rollably supporting the base with the guide and support wheels (Fig. 3B), and the carriage guide wheel comprising a rigid disc having a tapered rim (Fig. 3B, Ref. 36b) to grip the workpiece.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Doskocz to grip the workpiece (Doskocz Col. 5, Lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 73, Dugan teaches a torch alignment assembly (Fig. 1, Ref. 18) mounted to the body, wherein the welding torch is mounted to and supported by the torch alignment assembly, and wherein the torch alignment assembly is operable to vary alignment between a tip of the welding torch and the common rolling direction (Col. 5, Lines 51-67 through Col. 6, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 84, Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein the welding equipment is electrical welding equipment, and the welding torch is an electrical welding torch.
However in the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches wherein the welding equipment is electrical welding equipment, and the welding torch is an electrical welding torch (Col. 1, Lines 32-35) to join materials to meet the user’s needs (Doskocz Col. 1, Lines 23-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carriage structure of Dugan with the welding torch type of Doskocz to join materials to meet the user’s needs (Doskocz Col. 1, Lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 85, Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein the welding equipment is arc welding equipment, and the welding torch is an arc welding torch.
However in the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches wherein the welding equipment is arc welding equipment, and the welding torch is an arc welding torch (Col. 1, Lines 32-35) to join materials to meet the user’s needs (Doskocz Col. 1, Lines 23-28).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the carriage structure of Dugan with the welding torch type of Doskocz to join materials to meet the user’s needs (Doskocz Col. 1, Lines 23-28).
Claims 59-61, 66, 74-75, 78, and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2 and in further view of Maeda et al. US 3596048 A.
Regarding claim 59, Dugan does not specifically disclose the torch alignment assembly comprises a support arm coupled to suspend the welding torch, and a torch alignment wheel having a tapered rim; and the tapered rim of the carriage guide wheel and the tapered rim of the torch alignment wheel have a common cross sectional profile.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches the torch alignment assembly comprises a support arm (Fig. 2; Ref.3) coupled to suspend the welding torch (Fig.2; Ref.6), and a torch alignment wheel having a tapered rim (Col. 2, Fig. 2 shows the tapered wheel at the end of Ref. 10; Lines 26-27 “small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10”); and the tapered rim of the torch alignment wheel have a common cross sectional profile (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
However in the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches the carriage guide wheel comprising a rigid disc having a tapered rim (Fig. 3B, Ref. 36b) to grip the workpiece.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Doskocz to grip the workpiece (Doskocz Col. 5, Lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 60, Dugan does not specifically disclose the torch alignment wheel and the carriage guide wheel are arranged to roll one-after-the- other within a range of variable alignment of the torch alignment wheel with the rolling direction of the carriage guide wheel.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches the torch alignment wheel and the carriage guide wheel are arranged to roll one-after-the- other within a range of variable alignment of the torch alignment wheel with the rolling direction of the carriage guide wheel (Fig. 1 shows the alignment wheel at the bottom of Ref. 10 rolls ahead of the carriage guide wheel Ref. 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Regarding claim 61, Dugan discloses the support arm is coupled at a first end of the support arm to a support arm mount mounted to the body to variably tilt the support arm; and the welding torch is mounted to the support arm at a second end of the support arm to variably tilt the welding torch together with the support arm thereby to vary alignment between the tip of the welding torch and the rolling direction of the carriage guide wheel (Col. 6, Lines 31-37 wherein the welding carriage tilts about the shaft (Ref. 12) to position the welding nozzle).
Regarding claim 66, Dugan does not specifically disclose the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece; the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece); and the motor is operable to drive the at least one of the carriage guide wheel or the support wheel of the wheeled suspension to move the welding carriage with the carriage guide wheel and the torch alignment wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”); the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13); and the motor is operable to drive the at least one of the carriage guide wheel or the support wheel (Col. 1, Lines 32-34 disclosing the motor incorporated in the automatic steering unit) of the wheeled suspension to move the welding carriage with the carriage guide wheel and the torch alignment wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Regarding claim 74, Dugan does not disclose wherein the torch alignment assembly comprises a support arm coupled to suspend the welding torch, and a torch alignment wheel having a tapered rim; and the tapered rim of the torch alignment wheel has the common cross sectional profile.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein the torch alignment assembly comprises a support arm (Fig. 2, Ref. 3) coupled to suspend the welding torch (Fig. 2, Ref. 6), and a torch alignment wheel having a tapered rim (Col. 2, Fig. 2 shows the tapered wheel at the end of Ref. 10; Lines 26-27 “small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10”); and the tapered rim of the torch alignment wheel has the common cross sectional profile (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Regarding claim 75, Dugan does not disclose wherein the torch alignment wheel is arranged to roll one-after-the-other with the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel along the common rolling direction within a range of variable alignment.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein the torch alignment wheel is arranged to roll one-after-the-other with the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel along the common rolling direction within a range of variable alignment (Fig. 1 shows the alignment wheel at the bottom of Ref. 10 rolls ahead of the carriage guide wheel Ref. 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Regarding claim 78, Dugan does not disclose wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece; the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece; and the motor is operable to drive the at least one of the first carriage guide wheel or the support wheel of the wheeled suspension to move the welding carriage with the first carriage guide wheel, the second carriage guide wheel, and the torch alignment wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”); the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13); and the motor is operable to drive the at least one of the first carriage guide wheel or the support wheel (Col. 1, Lines 32-34 disclosing the motor incorporated in the automatic steering unit) of the wheeled suspension to move the welding carriage with the first carriage guide wheel, the second carriage guide wheel, and the torch alignment wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Regarding claim 86, Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein a tip of the welding torch is aligned with a rolling path of the carriage guide wheel.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein a tip of the welding torch is aligned with a rolling path of the carriage guide wheel (Fig. 2, Ref. 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
Claims 63 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2, Maeda et al. US 3596048 A, and in further view of Johnson US 2439740 A.
Regarding claim 63, Dugan does not disclose wherein the torch alignment wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches wherein the torch alignment wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch (Fig. 2, Ref. 24; Col. 4 Lines 31-34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Johnson to allow greater flexibility with feeding the electrode.
Regarding claim 82, Dugan does not disclose wherein at least one of the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches wherein at least one of the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch (Fig. 2, Ref. 24; Col. 4 Lines 31-34).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Johnson to allow greater flexibility with feeding the electrode.
Claims 64 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2, Maeda et al. US 3596048 A, and in further view of Leiden et al. US 20120231168 A1.
Regarding claim 64, Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein a width of the cross sectional profile is from 3 to 10 mm; and a depth of the cross sectional profile is from 1 to 5 mm.
However in the same field of endeavor, Leiden teaches wherein a width of the cross sectional profile is from 3 to 10 mm; and a depth of the cross sectional profile is from 1 to 5 mm. (Para. 52 wherein the breadth, or width, is 1-1500 mm).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Leiden to fulfill the desired dimension of the workpiece area to be modified.
Regarding claim 65, Dugan does not specifically disclose wherein a diameter of the carriage guide wheel is from 5 to 25 cm (Para. 36 wherein The shape and properties of the roller, as well as the distance between the roller and the pipe can be designed in a case by case manner such that a sufficient amount of material will always be applied onto the weld-seam”); and a thickness of the carriage guide wheel is from 5 to 20 mm.
However in the same field of endeavor, Leiden teaches wherein a diameter of the carriage guide wheel is from 5 to 25 cm (Para. 36 wherein The shape and properties of the roller, as well as the distance between the roller and the pipe can be designed in a case by case manner such that a sufficient amount of material will always be applied onto the weld-seam”); and a thickness of the carriage guide wheel is from 5 to 20 mm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Leiden to fulfill the desired dimension of the workpiece area to be modified.
Claims 67, 70 and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2 and in further view of Johnson US 2439740 A.
Regarding claim 67, Dugan does not disclose wherein the rigid disc is formed of metal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches wherein the rigid disc is formed of metal (Fig. 2, Ref. 40; Col. 5 Lines 61-68 wherein the thrust roller is insulated from the carriage implying it is conductive).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Johnson to regulate the length of the arc.
Regarding claim 70, Dugan does not disclose wherein the carriage guide wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches wherein the carriage guide wheel is electrically conductive and is electrically coupled to the welding equipment to function as a return current electrode for the welding torch (Fig. 2, Ref. 24; Col. 2 Lines 1-7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Johnson to regulate the length of the arc.
Regarding claim 79, Dugan does not disclose wherein the first rigid disc and the second rigid disc are each formed of metal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Johnson teaches wherein the rigid disc is formed of metal (Fig. 2, Ref. 40; Col. 5 Lines 61-68 wherein the thrust roller is insulated from the carriage implying it is conductive).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Johnson to regulate the length of the arc.
Claims 68 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2, Saitoh et al. US 20090314750 A1, Johnson US 2439740 A, and in further view of Enyedy US 7745757 B2.
Regarding claim 68, Dugan does not disclose wherein the motor is coupled to drive the carriage guide wheel; and the support wheel is undriven by the motor and turns freely with rolling movement of the carriage.
However in the same field of endeavor, Saitoh teaches wherein: the motor is coupled to drive the carriage guide wheel (Col. 1, Lines 32-34 disclosing the motor incorporated in the automatic steering unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Saitoh to guide the welding device to a position and reduce the probability of poor welding.
In the same field of endeavor, Enyedy teaches the support wheel is undriven by the motor and turns freely with rolling movement of the carriage (Col. 3, Lines 29-34 wherein any number of wheels can be driven by the motor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Enyedy to allow the welding carriage and apparatus to move independent of one another.
Regarding claim 80, Dugan does not disclose wherein the motor is coupled to drive the first carriage guide wheel; and the first support wheel and the second support wheel are both undriven by the motor and turn freely with rolling movement of the carriage.
However in the same field of endeavor, Saitoh teaches wherein the motor is coupled to drive the first carriage guide wheel (Col. 1, Lines 32-34 disclosing the motor incorporated in the automatic steering unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Saitoh to guide the welding device to a position and reduce the probability of poor welding.
In the same field of endeavor, Enyedy teaches the support wheels are undriven by the motor and turns freely with rolling movement of the carriage (Col. 3, Lines 29-34 wherein any number of wheels can be driven by the motor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Enyedy to allow the welding carriage and apparatus to move independent of one another.
Claims 69, 71, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2, Saitoh et al. US 20090314750 A1, Johnson US 2439740 A, Maeda et al. US 3596048 A, Enyedy US 7745757 B2, and in further view of Snead US 9266198 B1.
Regarding claim 69, Dugan does not disclose wherein the support wheel has a non-slip surface.
However in the same field of endeavor, Snead teaches wherein the support wheel has a non-slip surface (Col. 4, Lines 4-26).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Snead to provide traction.
Regarding claim 71, Dugan does not disclose wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece; the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece; and the motor is operable to drive the carriage guide wheel to move the welding carriage with the carriage guide wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”), wherein the carriage guiding seam comprises a groove formed by abutting parts of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13); the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches the motor is operable to drive the carriage guide wheel to move the welding carriage with the carriage guide wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam (Col 5, Lines 12-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Doskocz to realign the welding carriage as necessary.
Regarding claim 83, Dugan does not disclose wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece; the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece; and the motor is operable to drive the first carriage guide wheel to move the welding carriage with the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Maeda teaches wherein the cross sectional profile is sized and shaped to roll in conforming contact with a carriage guiding seam of a workpiece (Col. 2, Lines 26-30 “a small diameter wheel at the forward end of the welding line detector 10 is fitted into the welding groove 13 of the object 12”) wherein the carriage guiding seam comprises a groove formed by abutting parts of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13); the welding torch is operable for welding an unwelded seam of the workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Maeda to correctly advanced the welding device along any welding line without the aid of a guide rail or track so as to weld along the welding line accurately, thereby eliminating the tedious welding preparation such as laying the guide rail and improving the welding operation.
In the same field of endeavor, Doskocz teaches the motor is operable to drive the first carriage guide wheel to move the welding carriage with the first carriage guide wheel and the second carriage guide wheel rolling in the carriage guiding seam (Col 5, Lines 12-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with Doskocz to realign the welding carriage as necessary.
Claim 87 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan US 8567466 B2 in view of Doskocz US 8487214 B2, and in further view of Novak et al. US 4841123 A.
Regarding claim 87, Dugan does not disclose wherein the carriage guide wheel and the support wheel are commonly mounted to an axle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Novak teaches wherein the carriage guide wheel and the support wheel are commonly mounted to an axle (Col. 4, Lines 37-45 wherein the drive support shaft connects the brackets and rollers) to maintain a constant clearance between the workpiece and the welding torch (Col. 4, Lines 30-36).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dugan with the invention of Novak to maintain a constant clearance between the workpiece and the welding torch (Col. 4, Lines 30-36).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights