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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters (US 2008/0006612).
Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a welding system (Fig. 8, 17 and 27), comprising: a welding power supply (10, 16, 2770) to provide power to a welding torch (as shown in Fig. 8, 17 and 27; para. 0038; para. 0071) for establishing an electrical arc between a metal cored welding wire (E) and a workpiece (W) to perform a weld (para. 0006); and control circuitry (50) configured to control the power supply to output a waveform having a peak phase (phase where peak pulse 302, 2520 is located) and a background phase (phase where pulses 322, 602, 2551 and 304, 604 are located), the control circuitry to: command the power supply to output a first pulse (302, 2520) at a first current level above a threshold current level required to transfer a ball of molten welding wire in the peak phase (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25); and command the power supply to output a second pulse (322, 602, 2551) at a second current level below the threshold current level in the background phase (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25), wherein the second current level is sufficient to dislodge a spot weld between the welding wire and the welding torch and not sufficient to transfer a ball of molten welding wire (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25; para. 0040; para. 0045; para. 0061).
Regarding claim 2, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the ball of molten welding wire is deposited onto a workpiece during the background phase, wherein the second current level is greater than a background current level (304, 604, lower current level of waveform 2500; as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25).
Regarding claim 3, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the peak phase and the background phase are applied in a cyclic pattern during performance of the weld (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25).
Regarding claim 4, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to command the second pulse at an approximate mid-point between two pulses output at the first current level (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25).
Regarding claim 6, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the welding wire is commanded to advance at a speed between 100 and 400 inches per minute (200 inches per minute; para. 0058; para. 0064; claim 10).
Regarding claim 8, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the waveform further comprises one or more intermediate phases (306, 308, 326, 604, ramp up and ramp down before and after 602, 2540, 2550) between the first pulse and the second pulse or between the second pulse and another pulse having the first current level (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25), wherein the one or more intermediate phases comprises one or more knee phases (306, 308, 326, 604, ramp up and ramp down before and after 602, 2540, 2550), the control circuity further configured to control the power supply to command a current output at a level greater than the background current and below the second current level during the one or more knee phases (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of KNJAZ’KOV (RU 2418659).
Regarding claim 5, Peters teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to command the second pulse between 0.3 and 2.0 ms after the first pulse.
KNJAZ’KOV teaches wherein the time between welding current pulses is between 0.3 and 2.0 ms (1.0ms; abstract).
Therefore, 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 have modified the time between welding current pulses of Peters, with KNJAZ’KOV, to provide the claimed time between welding current pulses, to assure proper welding by providing the second current pulse in a timely manner.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed time range between welding current pulses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters.
Regarding claim 7, Peters teaches the welding system as set forth above, wherein the peak current level is 380 amperes (para. 0041; para. 0047 discloses that the metal transfer line or current is less than the peak current, so in this case, the threshold current level is below 380 amperes), and wherein the second current level (current level of current pulse 322, 602, 2551) is equal to or less than half of the first current level (current level of current pulse 302, 2520) (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25).
Peter fails to disclose wherein the threshold current level is between 100-300 amperes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the claimed threshold current level range, the second current level range and the first current level range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “However, Peters does not disclose that these pulses dislodge a spot weld between the welding wire and the welding torch. Indeed, Peters does not disclose that these pulses have any effect on the welding wire or welding torch. FIG. 7 and “pulse” 322 of Peters is illustrative. Reference 322 is actually described as a “peak portion” of plasma boost pulse 320. Peters at ¶ 40. The function of Peters’s plasma boost pulse to “force puddle M [sic, should be puddle P] away from electrode E as shown at position V. This high are force cavitates puddle P drastically.... This assures that there is no incipient short or short circuit until after the next pulse 302.” Id. Thus, the function of plasma boost pulse 320 is to cavitate puddle P, and to prevent a short circuit at the workpiece rather than dislodge a spot weld at the welding torch. Further, puddle P is not at the electrode E. Rather, it is at the workpiece W as can be seen from the excerpt of FIG. 7 below, showing Position V… There is no disclosure in Peters that the plasma boost pulse 320 acts on the welding wire or welding torch. Rather, the disclosure in Peters is that it acts on the puddle P. Similarly, regarding FIG. 16, “pulse” 602 is actually boost pulse portion 602 of plasma boost pulse 600. As with plasma boost pulse 320, Peters only discloses that plasma boost pulse 600 acts on the puddle P: “At position IV [of FIG. 16] waveform 600 including a high power plasma boost is implemented between electrode E and workpiece W. This waveform causes action of puddle P shown in position IV.” Peters at ¶ 45. Regarding FIG. 25, “pulse” 2551 is the peak pulse amplitude of plasma boost pulse 2550. Id. at [ 65. Peters discloses at J 67: “The plasma boost pulse 2550 prevents a second short from occurring within the same cycle directly after the first short has occurred and helps condition the tip of the electrode for the next peak pulse (i.e., begins to melt the tip of the electrode).” Beginning to melt the tip of the electrode, however, is not a disclosure of “dislodg[ing] a spot weld between the welding wire and the welding torch,” as recited in claim 1.” Remarks page 6, lines 22-28, and page 7.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Peter teaches that “Then, a fast transition from the high peak current of pulse 302 to the low background current 304 can be provided. This quickly reduces the arc force between the droplet and the puddle.” (para. 0042). Therefore, Peters teaches commanding the power supply to output a second pulse (322, 602, 2551) at a second current level below the threshold current level in the background phase (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25), wherein the second current level is sufficient to dislodge a spot weld between the welding wire and the welding torch and not sufficient to transfer a ball of molten welding wire (as shown in Fig. 7, 16 and 25; para. 0040; para. 0045; para. 0061).
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-8, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/13/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761