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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 13 March 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Response to Amendment
The claims filed 15 September 2025 have not been entered. The current Office action is based on the claims field 21 April 2025.
A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief filed 13 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. The argument in section “A1” of the Appeal Brief was fully considered and was determined to be persuasive. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches limitations that are being disputed in this section. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
New grounds of rejection are provided, which are not due to the Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the current Office action is a non-final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 21 April 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 4 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 25-28 are new.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-14, 16, and 19-28 are pending.
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 5 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 5 recites “…wherein the unitary body has a thickness dimension measured from the bottom side to the top side that prevents splatter from welding within the welding cavity from escaping the welding cavity.” It is unclear how thick the measurement must be to “prevent splatter from welding within the welding cavity from escaping the welding cavity.” For example, would 6 inches thick be sufficient, but 5 inches thick not be sufficient? The Specification does not disclose any examples of measurements that have been found to prevent splatter. As a result, one of ordinary skill could not possibly know if they were infringing on this limitation or not. For the purpose of the examination, if the prior discloses that splatter can be prevented, then it will be presumed that this thickness is sufficient for preventing splatter.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 12-14, 16, and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-106624302-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘302) in view of Comon et al. (US-20130313039-A1), Hori et al. (US-20150258633-A1) and De Souza et al. (US-9770790-B2, hereinafter De Souza ‘790).
Regarding claim 1, Chen ‘302 teaches a welding window device (fig. 5; “integrated protective cover for the welding pool,” para 0026) comprising:
an elongated, unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5; construed as being elongated from left to right, fig. 5; “the housing can be integrally formed,” para 0009; “unitary” is defined as “of or relating to a unit;” the exterior surface of fig. 5 is construed as being a “unit;” housing 41 has a “rectangular body,” para 0034; the shells 41, 42, and 43 are construed as having a combined box shape) extending from an inlet end (right end located at the air inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) to an opposite outlet end (left end of fig. 5; air exits out the exhaust holes 33 and 31, fig. 5) in a first direction (horizontally from right to left, fig. 5), extending from a first lateral side (figs. 1-3 and 7 represent top and bottom views, paras 0022-0024; the top of figs. 1 and 3 or the bottom of figs. 2 and 7 is construed as the claimed “first lateral side;” annotated in figs. 1-3 and 7 below) to an opposite, second lateral side (the bottom of figs. 1 and 3 or the top of figs. 2 and 7 is construed as the claimed “second lateral side;” annotated in figs. 1-3 and 7 below) in a second direction (the claimed second direction is construed as being from top to bottom in figs. 1 and 3 or from the bottom to the top in figs. 2 and 7) that is transverse to the first direction (construed as being the direction from right to left in figs. 1-3 and 7), and extending from a bottom side (bottom side of fig. 5) to an opposite top side (top side of fig. 5) in a third direction (the claimed third direction is construed as being the vertical direction from bottom to top in fig. 5) that is transverse to the first direction (right to left in fig. 5) and the second direction (top to bottom, figs. 1 and 3; construed as being the depth (not shown) of fig. 5),
the unitary body defining a welding cavity (space inside shell 42 between holes 420, fig. 5; annotated in fig. 5 below) that extends through the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008) from the top side to the bottom side in the third direction (the construed cavity between the holes 420 extends from the top to the bottom, fig. 5) with the welding cavity being open through both the top side (open at top hole 420, fig. 5) and the bottom side of the unitary body (open at bottom hole 420, fig. 5), the welding cavity framed by the inlet end (right end, fig. 5), the outlet end (left end, fig. 5), the first lateral side (top end, figs. 1 and 3; the construed cavity is located inside the annular pipes as annotated in figs. 1 and 3), and the second lateral side of the unitary body (bottom end, figs. 1 and 3; the construed cavity is located inside the annular pipes as annotated in figs. 1 and 3),
the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5) including one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) inwardly extending through the unitary body (pipe 1 extends inside the shells 42 and 43, fig. 5) within one or more of the first lateral side or the second lateral side (pipe 1 extends to both the top and bottom sides of figs. 1 and 2) from an inlet opening in the inlet end (inlet of pipe 100, fig 5) of the unitary body and elongated in the unitary body toward the outlet end of the unitary body (pipes 1 and 100 extend to the left end of fig. 5), the one or more gas channels including nozzle openings (exhaust holes 32, fig. 2) inwardly oriented toward the welding cavity (“second exhaust holes 32 are provided on the lower half of the tube wall of the first ventilation pipe 1,” para 0034; pipe 2 is located at the top, fig. 5; the holes 32 are construed as being oriented downwards towards the bottom hole 420 where the weld pool would be located in fig. 5),
the one or more gas channels positioned in the unitary body to direct a gas (“shielding gas flow,” para 0036) into the welding cavity during welding (“When the welding gun is working,” para 0015).
Chen ‘302, figs. 1-2 and 5
PNG
media_image1.png
285
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
288
972
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
287
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
290
983
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
470
901
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen ‘302 does not explicitly disclose the welding cavity is framed by the first lateral side and the second lateral side of the unitary body (the Office was persuaded by the Applicant’s argument on page 10 of the Appeal Brief filed 13 March 2026 that “the material of the unitary body” forms “the first and/or second lateral sides,” i.e., that the claimed “sides” cannot be sides of a structure but instead must be their own structural elements made of a material); the welding of other bodies together within the welding cavity; wherein the unitary body includes a racetrack rim that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity, the racetrack rim configured to press into at least one of the other bodies to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity along the bottom side in contact with the other bodies during welding.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Comon teaches the welding cavity (space inside central orifice 51, figs. 8-9; a welding torch is mounted on the outer or inner periphery of the orifice 51, paras 0115-0116; figs. 5a-b) is framed by the first lateral side and the second lateral side of the unitary body (fig. 9 is a view from the top of the gas diffusion device, similar to Chen ‘302’s figs. 1 and 3; the first and second lateral sides are construed as intersecting with the outer edge of the material of the orifice 51; the sides are annotated in the fig. 9 below).
Comon, figs. 8-9 (annotated)
PNG
media_image6.png
382
714
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
488
1030
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302, in view of the teachings of Comon, by attaching an orifice 51, as taught by Comon, to the top hole 420, as taught by Chen ‘302, where the orifice was attached to the top of the welding cover at the periphery of the hole 420 and the orifice extended to the diffuser ring 21, as taught by Chen ‘302, which surrounded the orifice 51, as taught by Comon, in order to use a mount for the welding torch at the top of the housing, which allows the welding torch to extend into the hole, closer to the zone that is to be welded such that more heat is transferred to the welding pool, because more heat may be needed in certain high-temperature applications (Comon, paras 0006, 0057, and 0109).
Chen ‘302/ Comon does not explicitly disclose the welding of other bodies together within the welding cavity (although Chen teaches a weld pool, Chen does not explicitly disclose the welding together of two workpieces); wherein the unitary body includes a racetrack rim that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity, the racetrack rim configured to press into at least one of the other bodies to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity along the bottom side in contact with the other bodies during welding.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Hori teaches wherein the unitary body (exterior surface of welding device 1, fig. 2) includes a racetrack rim (seal section 8, fig. 3) that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity (the seal section 8 protrudes downward away from the space that is within the interior of the vacuum chamber 7, fig. 2), the racetrack rim configured to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity (para 0039).
Hori, figs. 2-4
PNG
media_image8.png
655
950
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
954
1155
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
975
927
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, wherein the unitary body includes a racetrack rim that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity, the racetrack rim configured to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity, in view of the teachings of Hori, by sealing, as taught by Hori, the welding protective cover to the weld area, as taught by Chen ‘302, and by attaching the vacuum exhaust device, as taught by Hori, to the bottom interior of the shell 41, as taught by Chen ‘302, because a weld bead naturally undulates causing leakage when vacuum pressure is applied, which can be mitigated by using a sealing section and a vacuum exhaust device, for the benefit of preventing the weld splatter and the vapor gas that is generated during welding from attaching to the welder (Hori, paras 0004, 0006, 0017, and 0043).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 could be modified to include a sealing section and vacuum exhaust device, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as to the use of a vacuum to remove weld splatter, Hori simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Chen ‘302/Comon/Hori do not explicitly disclose the welding of other bodies together within the welding cavity; the racetrack rim configured to press into at least one of the other bodies.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘790 teaches the welding of other bodies (metal sheets 18, fig. 3) together within the welding cavity (cavity 28, fig. 3); the racetrack rim (bottom of clamp 10, fig. 3) configured to press into at least one of the other bodies (column 8, lines 53-59).
De Souza ‘790, fig. 3
PNG
media_image11.png
394
498
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, the welding of other bodies together within the welding cavity; the racetrack rim configured to press into at least one of the other bodies, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘790, by clamping, as taught by De Souza ‘790, the welding protective cover to the weld area, as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to weld multiple metal sheets together by applying sufficient clamping pressure to the sheets such that they remained aligned and pressed during the welding process because if gaps are present between the metal sheets, then a weld with insufficient strength may result (De Souza ‘790, column 3, lines 6-11 and column 8, lines 53-59).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 could be modified to be clamped to metal sheets, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as whether the welding protective cover is being clamped to metal sheets, De Souza ‘790 simply serves to demonstrate that such a use would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Regarding claim 2, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5) includes one or more drain outlets (U-shaped pipe, figs. 3-4) extending within the unitary body (the pipe 22 is inside the shells of fig. 5) from the welding cavity (space between the holes 420, fig. 5) through the outlet end of the unitary body (left end of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the unitary body has a thickness dimension measured from the bottom side to the top side that is prevents splatter from welding within the welding cavity from escaping the welding cavity.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘790 teaches wherein the unitary body (walls 34, fig. 3) has a thickness dimension measured from the bottom side to the top side that is prevents splatter from welding within the welding cavity (“The cavity has such a width wc and height hc that it can prevent droplets of splatter 33 from forming,” column 7, lines 6-7) from escaping the welding cavity (“contains splatter within the cavity portion,” column 3, line 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, wherein the unitary body has a thickness dimension measured from the bottom side to the top side that is prevents splatter from welding within the welding cavity from escaping the welding cavity, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘790, by using a width and height that prevents droplets of splatter from forming, as taught by De Souza ‘790, for the welding protective cover as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to prevent droplets of splatter from forming underfill, undercuts, porosity, cracks, craters, blowholes, or blowouts at the weld site (De Souza ‘790, column 7, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 6, Chen ‘032 teaches wherein the nozzle openings (exhaust holes 32, fig. 2) extend from the one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) at a transverse angle oriented away from the inlet end of the unitary body (the exhaust holes 32 are oriented downward, para 0034, which is construed as being at an angle of 90 degrees relative to the right side of fig 2 where the inlet end is located).
Regarding claim 12, Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the body is coupled with or formed into a clamping device configured to impart a force on the body and the other bodies being welded together within the welding cavity of the body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘790 teaches wherein the body is coupled with or formed into a clamping device (clamp 10, fig. 3) configured to impart a force on the body and the other bodies being welded together within the welding cavity of the body (column 8, lines 53-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, wherein the body is coupled with or formed into a clamping device configured to impart a force on the body and the other bodies being welded together within the welding cavity of the body, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘790, by clamping, as taught by De Souza ‘790, the welding protective cover to the weld area, as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to apply sufficient clamping pressure to the worksheets such that they remained aligned and pressed during the welding process (De Souza ‘790, column 8, lines 53-59).
Regarding claim 13, Chen ‘302 teaches a method (“implementation methods,” para 0032) comprising:
clamping (not explicitly disclosed) a welding window device (fig. 5; “integrated protective cover for the welding pool,” para 0026), the welding window device comprising an elongated, unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5; construed as being elongated from left to right, fig. 5; “the housing can be integrally formed,” para 0009; “unitary” is defined as “of or relating to a unit;” the exterior surface of fig. 5 is construed as being a “unit;” housing 41 has a “rectangular body,” para 0034; the shells 41, 42, and 43 are construed as having a combined box shape) extending from an inlet end (right end located at the air inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) to an opposite, outlet end (left end of fig. 5; air exits out the exhaust holes 33 and 31, fig. 5) in a first direction (horizontally from right to left, fig. 5), extending from a first lateral side (figs. 1-3 and 7 represent top and bottom views, paras 0022-0024; the top of figs. 1 and 3 or the bottom of figs. 2 and 7 is construed as the claimed “first lateral side;” annotated in figs. 1-3 and 7 above) to an opposite, second lateral side (the bottom of figs. 1 and 3 or the top of figs. 2 and 7 is construed as the claimed “second lateral side;” annotated in figs. 1-3 and 7 above) in a second direction (the claimed second direction is construed as being from top to bottom in figs. 1 and 3 or from the bottom to the top in figs. 2 and 7) that is transverse to the first direction (construed as being the direction from right to left in figs. 1-3 and 7), and extending from a bottom side (bottom side of fig. 5) to an opposite, top side (top side of fig. 5)in a third direction (the claimed third direction is construed as being the vertical direction from bottom to top in fig. 5) that is transverse to the first direction (right to left in fig. 5) and the second direction (top to bottom, figs. 1 and 3; construed as being the depth (not shown) of fig. 5);
directing a curtain gas (“shielding gas flow,” para 0036; directed into the pipe 100, fig. 5) into one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) extending through the welding window device in the first direction (the pipes 1 and 100 extend from right to left, fig. 5), the one or more gas channels shaped to curve within the welding window device (pipe 1 is curved at the valve 7, fig. 5) to direct the curtain gas into a welding cavity (space inside shell 42 between holes 420, fig. 5; pipe 1 surrounds this space, fig. 5; gas is directed to the cavity through the holes 32 of pipe 1, para 0034 and fig. 2; annotated in fig. 5 above) that extends through the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008) from the top side to the bottom side in the third direction (the construed cavity between the holes 420 extends from the top to the bottom, fig. 5) with the welding cavity being open through both the top side (open at top hole 420, fig. 5) and the bottom side of the unitary body (open at bottom hole 420, fig. 5), the welding cavity framed by the inlet end (right end, fig. 5), the outlet end (left end, fig. 5), the first lateral side (top end, figs. 1 and 3; the construed cavity is located inside the annular pipes), and the second lateral side of the unitary body (bottom end, figs. 1 and 3; the construed cavity is located inside the annular pipes).
Chen ‘302 does not explicitly disclose clamping a welding window device onto a first body that is to be welding to a second body; the welding cavity framed by the first lateral side and the second lateral side of the unitary body (the Office was persuaded by the Applicant’s argument on page 10 of the Appeal Brief filed 13 March 2026 that “the material of the unitary body” forms “the first and/or second lateral sides,” i.e., that the claimed “sides” cannot be sides of a structure but instead must be their own structural elements made of a material); directing energy into the welding cavity of the welding window device to weld the first body to the second body inside the welding cavity and within the curtain gas in the welding cavity, and wherein clamping the welding window device onto the first body includes pressing, into the first body, a racetrack rim of the unitary body that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity along the bottom side in contact with either the first body or the second body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Comon teaches the welding cavity (space inside central orifice 51, figs. 8-9; a welding torch is mounted on the outer or inner periphery of the orifice 51, paras 0115-0116; figs. 5a-b) is framed by the first lateral side and the second lateral side of the unitary body (fig. 9 is a view from the top of the gas diffusion device, similar to Chen ‘302’s figs. 1 and 3; the first and second lateral sides are construed as intersecting with the outer edge of the material of the orifice 51; the sides are annotated in the fig. 9 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302, in view of the teachings of Comon, by attaching an orifice 51, as taught by Comon, to the top hole 420, as taught by Chen ‘302, where the orifice was attached to the top of the welding cover at the periphery of the hole 420 and the orifice extended to the diffuser ring 21, as taught by Chen ‘302, which surrounded the orifice 51, as taught by Comon, in order to use a mount for the welding torch at the top of the housing, which allows the welding torch to extend into the hole, closer to the zone that is to be welded such that more heat is transferred to the welding pool, because more heat may be needed in certain high-temperature applications (Comon, paras 0006, 0057, and 0109).
Chen ‘302/Comon do not explicitly disclose clamping a welding window device onto a first body that is to be welding to a second body; directing energy into the welding cavity of the welding window device to weld the first body to the second body inside the welding cavity and within the curtain gas in the welding cavity, and wherein clamping the welding window device onto the first body includes pressing, into the first body, a racetrack rim of the unitary body that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity along the bottom side in contact with either the first body or the second body.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Hori teaches a racetrack rim (seal section 8, fig. 3) of the unitary body (exterior surface of welding device 1, fig. 2) that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity (the seal section 8 protrudes downward away from the space that is within the interior of the vacuum chamber 7, fig. 2) to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity (para 0039) along the bottom side in contact with either the first body or the second body (“seal section 8 is a sealing material interposed between the holder 12 and the welding target T,” para 0048; construed such that the seal section is contact with the welding target T).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, a racetrack rim of the unitary body that protrudes from the bottom side away from the welding cavity to encircle and seal at least a portion of the welding cavity along the bottom side in contact with either the first body or the second body, in view of the teachings of Hori, by sealing, as taught by Hori, the welding protective cover to the weld area, as taught by Chen ‘302, and by attaching the vacuum exhaust device, as taught by Hori, to the bottom interior of the shell 41, as taught by Chen ‘302, because a weld bead naturally undulates causing leakage when vacuum pressure is applied, which can be mitigated by using a sealing section and a vacuum exhaust device, for the benefit of preventing the weld splatter and the vapor gas that is generated during welding from attaching to the welder (Hori, paras 0004, 0006, 0017, and 0043).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 could be modified to include a sealing section and vacuum exhaust device, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as to the use of a vacuum to remove weld splatter, Hori simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Chen ‘302/ Comon/ Hori do not explicitly disclose clamping a welding window device onto a first body that is to be welding to a second body; directing energy into the welding cavity of the welding window device to weld the first body to the second body inside the welding cavity and within the curtain gas in the welding cavity and wherein clamping the welding window device onto the first body includes pressing, into the first body, a racetrack rim.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘790 teaches clamping a welding window device (laser welding clamp 10, fig. 6A) onto a first body (top metal sheet 18, fig. 6A) that is to be welded to a second body (second from the top metal sheet 18, fig. 6A); directing energy (laser beam 24, fig. 6A) into the welding cavity (cavity 28, fig. 6A) of the welding window device to weld the first body to the second body inside the welding cavity (column 6, lines 45-60) and within the curtain gas in the welding cavity (gas channels 36, fig. 6C; column 7, lines 20-29) and wherein clamping the welding window device onto the first body includes pressing, into the first body (top metal sheet 18, fig. 6A; column 8, lines 53-59), a racetrack rim (bottom of clamp 10, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, clamping a welding window device onto a first body that is to be welding to a second body; directing energy into the welding cavity of the welding window device to weld the first body to the second body inside the welding cavity and within the curtain gas in the welding cavity and wherein clamping the welding window device onto the first body includes pressing, into the first body, a racetrack rim, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘790, by clamping, as taught by De Souza ‘790, the welding protective cover to the weld area, as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to weld multiple metal sheets together by applying sufficient clamping pressure to the sheets such that they remained aligned and pressed during the welding process because if gaps are present between the metal sheets, then a weld with insufficient strength may result (De Souza ‘790, column 3, lines 6-11 and column 8, lines 53-59).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 could be modified to be clamped to metal sheets, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as whether the welding protective cover is being clamped to metal sheets, De Souza ‘790 simply serves to demonstrate that such a use would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Regarding claim 14, Chen ‘302 teaches further comprising exhausting (para 0035) the curtain gas (“shielding gas,” para 0036) and one or more other gaseous components (“air,” para 0034) out of the welding cavity (flows out pipe 21 to pipe 22, fig. 3-4; pipe 21 surrounds the construed cavity) through one or more drain outlets (U-shaped pipe 22, figs. 3-4) extending from the welding cavity (space inside the pipe 21, figs. 3-4) through an outlet end of the welding window device (pipe 22 extends through the left end of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising containing splatter from welding within the welding cavity using the welding window device.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘790 teaches further comprising containing splatter from welding within the welding cavity using the welding window device (“contains splatter within the cavity portion,” column 3, line 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, further comprising containing splatter from welding within the welding cavity using the welding window device, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘790, by using a width and height that prevents droplets of splatter from forming, as taught by De Souza ‘790, for the welding protective cover as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to prevent droplets of splatter from forming underfill, undercuts, porosity, cracks, craters, blowholes, or blowouts at the weld site (De Souza ‘790, column 7, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 21, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the one or more drain outlets (U-shaped pipe 22, figs. 3-4) include at least first (top part of pipe 22, fig. 4) and second drain outlets (bottom part of pipe 22, fig. 4) that intersect at an inner surface of the unitary body (pipe 22 intersects with inner surface of 41, fig. 5) along one end of the welding cavity (left end of space between holes 420, fig. 5) and diverge away from each other toward the outlet end of the unitary body (the upper side and lower side of the U-shaped pipe 22 diverge from each other towards the left end of the figure, figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 22, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5) includes a fastener opening (exhaust holes 31 in shell 41, fig. 5) extending through the unitary body (holes 31 extend through shell 41, fig. 5) along or parallel to the third direction from the top side of the unitary body to the bottom side of the unitary body (the holes 31 are oriented parallel to the direction from the top to bottom of fig. 5), the first and second drain outlets (U-shaped pipe 22, fig. 5) extending within the unitary body on opposite sides of the fastener opening to the outlet end of the unitary body (as shown in figs. 3-4, the top parts and bottom parts of the U-shaped are construed as being on either end of the holes 31 at the bottom of the shell 41 that are shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 23, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the one or more drain outlets (U-shaped pipe 22, figs. 3-4) include at least first (top part of pipe 22, fig. 4) and second drain outlets (bottom part of pipe 22, fig. 4) that intersect at an inner surface of the body (pipe 22 intersects with inner surface of 41, fig. 5) along one end of the welding cavity (left end of space between holes 420, fig. 5) and diverge away from each other toward the outlet end of the body (the upper side and lower side of the U-shaped pipe 22 diverge from each other towards the left end of the figure, figs. 3-4), and the curtain gas (“shielding gas,” para 0036) and the one or more other gaseous components (“air,” para 0034) are exhausted out of the welding cavity through the first and second drain outlets (flows out pipe 21 to pipe 22, fig. 3-4; pipe 21 surrounds the construed cavity).
Regarding claim 24, Chen ‘302 teaches further comprising fastening the welding window device to the first body using a fastener (bottom part of shell 41, fig. 5; “an integrated protective cover for the welding pool and the high-temperature zone of the front weld includes a shell with a first exhaust hole 31 at the bottom,” para 0034; construed such that the bottom part of the cover fastens to the weld area) placed through a fastener opening (interior of shell 41, fig. 5) that extends through the welding window device from a top side of the welding window device to the bottom side of the welding window device (space inside shell 41 extend from the top to the bottom of fig. 5), wherein the curtain gas (“shielding gas,” para 0036) and the one or more other gaseous components (“air,” para 0034) are exhausted out of the welding cavity through the first and second drain outlets flows out pipe 21 to pipe 22, fig. 3-4; pipe 21 surrounds the construed cavity) that extend within the unitary body on opposite sides of the fastener opening to the outlet end of the unitary body (the upper side and lower side of the U-shaped pipe 22 diverge from each other towards the left end of the figure, figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 25, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the unitary body (“outer shell,” para 0008; outer surface of shells 41, 42, and 43, fig. 5) comprises an inner surface (outer surface of pipe 21, figs. 3 and 7) that completely extends around and frames the welding cavity (the construed cavity is surrounded by the annular pipe 21, fig. 3 and 7) between the welding cavity and each of the inlet end, the outlet end, the first lateral side, and the second lateral side (“the outer shell comprises a first shell … a second shell … and a third shell,” para 0008; the pipe 21 is located within each of the sides of the outer shell of the cover).
Regarding claim 26, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) are curved (pipe 1 is curved at the valve 7, fig. 5) within the unitary body (specifically the shell 43, fig. 5) between the inlet end of the unitary body (right end, fig. 5) and the welding cavity (space between the holes 420, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 27, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) curve downward within the unitary body toward the bottom side of the unitary body between the inlet end of the unitary body and the welding cavity (pipe 1 curves at the valve 7, fig. 5; the curve is located between the holes 420 and the right end, fig. 5) such that a first end (top end of pipe 1, fig. 1) of the one or more gas channels is offset from a second end (right end of pipe 100, fig. 5) of the one or more gas channels in the third direction (bottom to top, fig. 5; pipe 1 is vertically displaced from pipe 100, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 28, Chen ‘302 teaches wherein the one or more gas channels (first ventilation pipe 1 and inlet main pipe 100, fig. 5) curve outward within the unitary body toward the first lateral side or the second lateral side of the welding cavity (pipe 1 curves outward towards the top and bottom of figs. 1 and 2 relative to the space inside the center of pipe 1) such that a first end of the one or more gas channels (top end of pipe 1, fig. 1) is offset from a second end of the one or more gas channels (right end of pipe 100, fig. 5) in the second direction (top to bottom, fig. 3; the top end of pipe 1 is vertically displaced from the right end pipe 1, fig. 1; the right end of pipe 1 in fig 1 is construed as being aligned directly under the pipe 100, fig. 5, i.e., the top end of pipe 1 in fig. 1 is construed as also being displaced relative to the pipe 100 in the depth direction of fig. 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-106624302-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘302) in view of Comon et al. (US-20130313039-A1), Hori et al. (US-20150258633-A1) and De Souza et al. (US-9770790-B2, hereinafter De Souza ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al. (CN-107052576-B, referencing the foreign version for drawings and the provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘576).
Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more gas channels are disposed in only one of the first lateral side or the second lateral side of the unitary body (in figs. 3 and 7, the U-shaped pipe 22 extends to both sides).
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Chen ‘576 teaches wherein the one or more gas channels (flow path inlet 114 to flow path outlet 115, fig. 1) are disposed in only one of the first lateral side (workpiece lower plate 111, fig. 1) or the second lateral side of the unitary body (exterior surface of fig. 1).
Chen ‘576, fig. 1
PNG
media_image12.png
533
529
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, wherein the one or more gas channels are disposed in only one of the first lateral side or the second lateral side of the unitary body, in view of the teachings of Chen ‘576, where instead of a U-shaped pipe 22 was used, as taught by Chen ‘302, instead a linear pipe was used on the side of the welding cavity, as taught by Chen ‘576, because inert gas facilitates the control of weld spatter and improves the quality of the weld and by using a single flow path instead of multiple flow paths, the flow rate of the flow passage for the top part of the gas dispersal tube 21 may be better controlled by setting the gas flow to an optimal 10 to 50 L/min (Chen ‘576, top of page 5).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the U-shaped pipe 22 of Chen ‘302 could be modified to instead be linear-shaped pipe, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as whether a linear pipe can be substituted for the U-shaped pipe, Chen ‘576 simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-106624302-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘302) in view of Comon et al. (US-20130313039-A1), Hori et al. (US-20150258633-A1) and De Souza et al. (US-9770790-B2, hereinafter De Souza ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bruce (US-20060266745-A1).
Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the unitary body is formed from one or more of stainless steel, copper, a copper alloy, inconel, an inconel alloy, magnesium, a magnesium alloy, a ceramic matrix composite, an ultra-high-temperature ceramic, polyphenylene sulfide, liquid crystal polymer polyetheretherketone, polyphthalamide, polysulfones, polyetherimides, or polyphenylsulfone.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, Bruce teaches wherein the unitary body (outer surface 12, fig. 1) is formed from one or more of stainless steel (para 0028), copper, a copper alloy, inconel, an inconel alloy, magnesium, a magnesium alloy, a ceramic matrix composite, an ultra-high-temperature ceramic, polyphenylene sulfide, liquid crystal polymer polyetheretherketone, polyphthalamide, polysulfones, polyetherimides, or polyphenylsulfone.
Bruce, fig. 1
PNG
media_image13.png
611
583
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, wherein the unitary body is formed from one or more of stainless steel, copper, a copper alloy, inconel, an inconel alloy, magnesium, a magnesium alloy, a ceramic matrix composite, an ultra-high-temperature ceramic, polyphenylene sulfide, liquid crystal polymer polyetheretherketone, polyphthalamide, polysulfones, polyetherimides, or polyphenylsulfone, in view of the teachings of Bruce, by forming the welding protective cover, as taught by Chen ‘302, out of stainless steel, as taught by Bruce, in order to use a material that is durable, tough, easy to clean, and readily available.
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 could be formed from a material such as stainless steel, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as to what type of material is used for the outer shell of the welding protective cover, Bruce simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been performed in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-106624302-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘302) in view of Comon et al. (US-20130313039-A1), Hori et al. (US-20150258633-A1), and De Souza et al. (US-9770790-B2, hereinafter De Souza ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US-20170259278-A1).
Chen ‘302 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the unitary body is a monolithic additively manufactured structure.
However, in the same field of endeavor of processing apparatuses, Tanaka teaches wherein the unitary body (exterior surface of nozzle device 15, fig. 2) a monolithic additively manufactured structure (“the nozzle device 15 described above is additively manufactured by a 3D printer, for example,” para 0053).
Tanaka, fig. 2
PNG
media_image14.png
780
784
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘305 to include, wherein the unitary body is a monolithic additively manufactured structure, in view of the teachings of Tanka, by additively manufacturing, as taught by Tanaka, the welding protective cover, as taught by Chen ‘305, that included the orifice 51, as taught by Comon, and the seal section 8, as taught by Hori, in order to cut and shape the ducts that are produced by layers produced by additive manufacturing, facilitating ducts that are shaped different directions, as opposed ducts to conventional methods, where ducts only face in one direction (Tanaka, paras 0053- 0058).
Regarding the limitation “a monolithic additively manufactured structure,” it is noted that this recitation is a product-by-process limitation, defining the manner in which the body is manufactured. As no clear limitations are apparent as a result of this product by process limitation, it is Applicant’s burden to establish an unobvious difference between the claimed invention and the cited art. Please see MPEP 2113.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN-106624302-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure, hereinafter Chen ‘302) in view of Comon et al. (US-20130313039-A1), Hori et al. (US-20150258633-A1) and De Souza et al. (US-9770790-B2, hereinafter De Souza ‘790) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of De Souza et al. (US-20160303688-A1, cited in 892 form date 29 Dec 2023, hereinafter De Souza ‘688).
Chen ‘302/Hori/De Souza ‘790 teach the welding window device of claim 1 (please see rejection provided above for claim 1).
Chen ‘302 does not explicitly disclose a kit of parts comprising: a frame; and two or more of the welding window devices, wherein the frame and said two or more of the welding window devices are configured for the two or more of the welding window devices to be coupled with the frame, the welding window devices configured to be coupled to the frame in locations for concurrent or simultaneous welding of components together within the welding cavities of the welding window devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding, De Souza ‘688 teaches a kit of parts (“three tubular enclosures 18 shown in fig. 2,” para 0029) comprising: a frame (isolator 34, fig. 2; “part of a bus bar frame,” para 0025); and two or more of the welding window devices (three shielding enclosure assemblies 16, fig. 2), wherein the frame and said two or more of the welding window devices are configured for the two or more of the welding window devices to be coupled with the frame (the assemblies 16 are coupled to the insulator 34, fig. 2; para 0030), the welding window devices configured to be coupled to the frame in locations for concurrent or simultaneous welding of components together within the welding cavities (laser weld 36, fig. 1) of the welding window devices (“Three laser beams 38 are projected,” para 0029; construed such that concurrent or simultaneous welding takes place as shown in fig. 2).
De Souza ‘688, fig. 2
PNG
media_image15.png
980
808
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Chen ‘302 to include, a kit of parts comprising: a frame; and two or more of the welding window devices, wherein the frame and said two or more of the welding window devices are configured for the two or more of the welding window devices to be coupled with the frame, the welding window devices configured to be coupled to the frame in locations for concurrent or simultaneous welding of components together within the welding cavities of the welding window devices, in view of the teachings of De Souza ‘688, by using multiple assemblies, as taught by De Souza ‘688, where the assemblies are the welding protective covers, as taught by Chen ‘302, in order to use the welding protective covers to weld together a plurality of parts at the same time, for the benefit of expediting the welding process as a result of accomplishing multiple welds at the same time.
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that instead of using just one welding protective cover of Chen ‘302 that multiple welding protective covers could be used, as taught by De Souza ‘688, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Chen ‘302 is silent as to whether multiple protective covers can be used currently, De Souza ‘688 simply serves to demonstrate that such a modification would have been used in a routine manner in the invention of Chen ‘302.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments in the Appeal Brief filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered.
A1. Chen ‘302, Hori ‘633, and De Souza ‘790, alone or in combination do not satisfy the recited “one or more gas channels” as claimed
The Office was persuaded by the argument on Page 10 of the Appeal Brief that:
“Thus, the claimed gas channels are not located in the welding cavity itself, nor are they merely disposed somewhere within an interior space of the device. Instead, the one or more gas channels extend through the material of the unitary body forming the first and/or second lateral sides that frame the welding cavity.
Previously, the claimed “sides” were construed as being the sides of a unified body and not as actual material that is part of the unitary body. As a result, a new prior art reference is being used to teach the claimed “first lateral side” and the “second lateral side.”
Page 10 of the Arguments focuses on the drawings of Chen ‘302, which do not show the sides of the shells 41, 42, and 43. The Applicant concludes that because these sides are not shown in the top-down or bottom-down views, which only show the pipes, then the first and second laterals sides are not on the lateral walls of the shells.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because Chen ‘302 describes the shells 41, 42, and 43 as being an “integrated protective cover for the welding pool” (paragraphs 0011 and 0034). These shells have holes at their bottoms (paragraph 0034). Chen ‘302 also describes shell 41 as having a “rectangular body” (paragraph 0034). Furthermore, Chen ‘302 describes the integrated cover as having an “input end” and an “output end” (paragraph 0036). Thus, although the lateral edges of the shells are not shown in figs. 1-4, the examiner understands the written disclosure of Chen ‘302 such that the integrated protective cover that is taught by Chen ‘302 has a shape with a depth that is used to cover the welding pool during welding (referring to fig. 5 of Chen ‘302, which only shows a cross section and not the depth of the integrated cover).
Page 11 of the Arguments states that “the claimed gas channel is structurally integrated into the body portion that frames the cavity, not merely disposed within the cavity or another open interior space.” This argument is similar to the argument on page 10 that the claimed “sides” must be formed of a material and cannot be an interior space. The examiner agrees that in the previous Office action the claimed “sides” were treated as sides of a structure (i.e., space) and not specific structural elements (i.e., material). However, Applicant’s arguments are now moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Chen ‘302 combined with Comon, Hori, and De Souza.
A2. Chen '302, Hori '633, and De Souza '790 do not teach or suggest the recited "racetrack rim"
Page 12-15 of the Appeal brief argue that because a “unitary body” is recited, the examiner is not permitted to consider modifying Chen ‘302 to include the seal section that is taught by Hori because adding the additional seal would cause the seal to be a “separable component” and thus would not be a “unitary body,” which is not within the scope of the claimed invention.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because MPEP 2141 permits examiners to make obviousness determinations by combining different references. By extension, the Applicant should be permitted to this same degree of obviousness if their claimed invention becomes patentable. For example, if one were to modify the Applicant’s claimed invention by adding a mount for a welding torch at the top, then this would likely be considered obvious. However, based on the Applicant’s logic, such a modification would be nonobvious because the claims are directed to a “unitary body.”
Page 14 alleges that the examiner is using improper hindsight. However, respectfully submit that the motivation in combining Hori with Chen ‘302 or De Souza with Chen ‘302/Hori came from these respective references. In other words, the examiner is not relying on the Applicant’s disclosure to form these combinations. Rather, respectfully submit that these references suggest that using a sealing element on the bottom of welding cover or a clamping element to clamp a welding cover are features that are already well-known in the art.
A3. The examiner erred in the construction of the term “unitary”
The examiner has defined the term “unitary” as meaning “of or relating to a unit.” On pages 15-17, the Applicant does not provide an alternative definition. However, the Applicant references paragraph 0039 of the Specification, which describes a monolithic, additively manufactured structure as an example of what is meant by a “unitary body.” The Applicant then uses this example to conclude that the term “unitary” should not be “interpreted so broadly as to encompass an assembly of separate parts merely coupled together.”
In the rejection, the examiner is construing the shells of the welding cover, which are the housing of the welding cover, as the claimed “unitary body.” Referencing paragraph 0042 of the Specification, it appears that the body 206 is simply the housing of the welding window device (the arrow from numeral 206 is pointing at the housing of the device). Thus, based on the examiner’s understanding of the Specification, it is not clear why the housing of the welding cover taught by Chen ‘302 cannot be the claimed “unitary body.”
Respectfully submit that in their arguments, the Applicant consider providing a positive definition of what a “unitary body” is instead of providing negative statements about what a “unitary body” is not. The examiner is trying to understand what structural features about the limitation “unitary body” are defining features that can be used to overcome the prior art references. For example, does “unitary body” mean “consisted of?” In other words, is the Applicant arguing that no other items can be included in the claim scope? It appears that what is being argued is that “unitary body” is not the prior art references. If the intent is to limit the claim scope by defining what a “unitary body” is not, instead of using the metes and bounds of a positive definition is meant to be for the “unitary body,” then recommend using “consisting” instead of “including” in order to limit the scope of the claimed “unitary body” by a negative aspect. Closing off the scope of the claim would be a better approach for arguments that are based on a negative meaning of a term.
B. The examiner erred in the Rejection of Claim 19 under 35 USC § 103
In response to applicant's argument that the nozzle device 15 taught by Tanaka is not the claimed “unitary body,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, the teachings of Tanaka suggest that manufacturing a welding cover using additive manufacturing provides advantages over conventional methods. Moreover, claim 19 has been identified as a product-by-process limitation. The Applicant has yet to identify how the process of additively manufacturing the “unitary body” results in a product that provides features, which are non-obvious over the prior-art references. Instead of identifying these features, the Applicant’s arguments are focused on why the references cannot be combined. Recommend explaining why the process of additively manufacturing the “unitary body” results is a final product that is nonobvious over the prior-art references (referencing MPEP 2113).
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/21/2026
Prosecution Insights