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 § 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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 11, 13, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayer (US20190030633) in view of Blasko (US 20060177227).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Zwayer
Regarding claim 1, Zwayer teaches weld monitoring system, comprising:
a reel (102) configured to extend and retract a cord that is spooled on the reel ([0022] reel 102 is configured to wind and unwind a cable 104),
a sensor (112) configured to measure a speed at which the cord is extended or retracted from the reel (102), or a length of the cord that is extended or retracted ([0025] sensor 112 can be configured to measure the length of the cable 104),
a welding tool (114).
Zwayer is silent on control circuitry configured to determine a travel speed of a tool that is coupled to the reel or the cord based on the speed at which the cord is extended or retracted from the reel or length of the cord that is extended or retracted, measured by the sensor.
Blasko teaches control circuitry configured to determine a travel speed ([0046] speed at which the swing is pulled out) of a tool (22) that is coupled to the reel or the cord (20) based on the speed at which the cord is extended or retracted from the reel or length of the cord that is extended or retracted, measured by the sensor ([0026, 0037, 0046] sensor at the edge of the aperture 15, where speed of pull-cord knob or head 22 would be the same as the speed at which the cord is pulled out as 22).
Zwayer and Blasko are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reel systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer, to apply the control circuitry of Blasko, to the welding tool of Zwayer, to determine a travel speed of the welding tool coupled to the reel or cord based on the speed the reel or cord is extended or retracted from the reel so that the acceleration or deceleration of the cord and the attached tool at the end may be measured and utilized as a form of input to the device (Blasko [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Zwayer teaches method of monitoring a travel speed or travel direction of a welding tool, the method comprising:
measuring, via a sensor (112), a speed at which a cord is extended or retracted by a reel, or a length of the cord that is extended or retracted by the reel, ([0025] sensor 112 can be configured to measure the length of the cable 104), the welding tool (114) being coupled to the reel or the cord (104).
Blasko is silent on determining, via control circuitry, a travel speed of the welding tool based on the speed at which the cord is extended or retracted by the reel or length of the cord that is extended or retracted by the reel, measured by the sensor.
Blasko teaches determining, via control circuitry, a travel speed ([0046] speed at which the swing is pulled out) of the welding tool (22) based on the speed at which the cord (20) is extended or retracted from the reel or length of the cord that is extended or retracted, measured by the sensor ([0026, 0037, 0046] sensor at the edge of the aperture 15, where speed of pull-cord knob or head 22 would be the same as the speed at which the cord is pulled out as 22) .
It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer, to apply the control circuitry of Blasko, to the welding tool of Zwayer, to determine a travel speed of the welding tool coupled to the reel or cord based on the speed the reel or cord is extended or retracted from the reel so that the acceleration or deceleration of the cord and the attached tool at the end may be measured and utilized as a form of input to the device (Blasko [0004]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Zwayer teaches wherein the reel (102) comprises a reel coupler configured to secure the reel a workpiece or the welding torch, or an end of the cord (106) comprises a cord coupler (114) configured to secure the end of the cord ([0022] portion of cable 106 shown in Fig. 1 to be clamped by tool 114 on workpiece 116) to the workpiece or an indoor fixture (116).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Zwayer teaches wherein the welding tool comprises a welding gun, welding torch, or electrode holder ([0022] connect with a welding-type tool 114, e.g., a welding-type torch, a plasma cutter, induction heating device, work clamp, etc.), and the sensor comprises a gyroscope, accelerometer, potentiometer, encoder, magnetic sensor, or optical sensor ([0025] sensor 112 can be, for example, a tachometer, a digital or an analog rotary encoder, a mechanical length measuring meter, an optical scanner, or other suitable sensor).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Zwayer teaches further comprising a user interface configured to provide an output indicative of the travel speed ([0029] interface 120 can provide alerts and or information, such as an indication as to the selected welding-type operation, a power output value, and calculated inductance, or other useful information).
Claims 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayer (US20190030633) and Blasko (US 20060177227) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Tsukui (US 20150028146).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, Zwayer teaches a spring loaded spool ([0032] reel 103 can include spring), the spring loaded spool having a spring tensions ([0032] spring providing force, to increase tension of cable), and a spring tension adjuster ([0033] locking ratchet) configured to adjust the spring tension([0033] locking ratchet allows for a certain amount of cable to pulled from the system, pulling being adjust tension).
Zwyaer and Blasko do not teach adjusting the spring tension in response to receiving a control signal.
Tsukui teaches adjusting the spring tension in response to receiving a control signal ([00071-0075] control motor to sustain or restrain unreeling, based on determination of reference speed, the motor taken to be the equivalent of a spring tension adjuster).
Zwayer, Blasko, and Tsukui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reel systems. It would have been obvious to modify the spring tension adjuster of Zwayer and Blasko, to include the teachings of Tsukui where the spring tension is adjusted in response to a control signal in order to allow the reeling device to be able to adapt to sudden changes of the tool and restrain the reel from rotating rapidly in response (Tsukui [0020]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zwayer, Blasko, and Tsukui teach the weld monitoring system of claim 4 and the method of claim 14, and Zwayer teaches the spring tension adjuster ([0033] locking ratchet).
Zwayer and Blasko are silent on wherein the control circuitry is configured to: generate the control signal based on a target travel speed, and send the control signal to the spring tension adjuster.
Tsukui teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to: generate the control signal based on a target travel speed ([0071-0075] based on rotation speed compared to a reference speed), and send the control signal to the spring tension adjuster ([00071-0075] control motor to sustain or restrain unreeling, based on determination of reference speed, the motor taken to be the equivalent of a spring tension adjuster as the motor adjusts tension).
It would have been obvious to modify the spring tension adjuster of Zwayer and Blasko, to include the operations of the motor of Tsukui, where a control signal is generated based on a target travel and sent to a motor, being the spring tension adjuster of Zwayer, in order to allow the reeling device to be able to adapt to sudden changes of the tool and restrain the reel from rotating rapidly in response (Tsukui [0020]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Zwayer teaches wherein the reel (102) comprises: a spool (102, Fig. 1 having a portion for winding cable 108) on which the cord (108) can be spooled ([0031] Fig. 1 cable 108 wound around reel 102),
Zwayer and Blasko are is silent on a spool motor configured to apply a rotational force to the spool to help extend or retract the cord, the spool motor being configured to apply the rotational force in response to receiving a control signal, and the control circuitry is configured to: generate the control signal based on a difference between (i) the travel speed or the travel direction and (ii) a target travel speed or a target travel direction, and send the control signal to the spool motor.
Tsukui teaches a spool motor (15) configured to apply a rotational force to the spool to help extend or retract the cord, the spool motor (15) being configured to apply the rotational force in response to receiving a control signal ([0061] motor controller 40 sends control signals motor driver 30 of motor 15), and the control circuitry is configured to: generate the control signal based on a difference between (i) the travel speed or the travel direction and (ii) a target travel speed or a target travel direction ([0071-0072] rotation speed compared to a reference rotation speed), and send the control signal to the spool motor ([0071-0075] control motor to sustain or restrain unreeling).
It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer and Blasko to incorporate the teachings of Tsukui to have a spool motor that responds to a control signal generated based on a difference between travel speed or travel direction and a target travel speed or travel direction in order to allow the reeling device to be able to adapt to sudden changes of the tool and restrain the reel from rotating rapidly in response (Tsukui [0020]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayer (US20190030633) and Blasko (US 20060177227) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Tracey (US20150307318).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Tracey
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Zwayer teaches the cord comprises a first end coupled to the welding tool ([0022] cable 106 attached to welding tool) but is silent on wherein the cord comprises a first end coupled to the welding tool and a second end coupled to a weight configured to anchor the reel or the end of the cord.
Tracey teaches the cord comprises a first end ([00158] linear material, Fig. 2 having a first end) and a second end coupled to a weight configured to anchor the reel or the end of the cord ([0158] an electrical receptacle, spray selector, remote, and/or the like on the end of the linear material may be heavy, Fig. 2 linear material having weight at housing 102).
Zwayer, Blasko, and Tracey are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of reel systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer and Blasko to incorporate the teachings of Tracey to have a weight on the reel or an end of a cord to help slow down the end of the material to help prevent slamming the aperture (Tracey [0158]).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwayer (US20190030633) and Blasko (US 20060177227).as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Luo (US20140374396).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 7 and the method of claim 17, but are silent on further comprising a welding helmet, wherein the welding helmet comprises the control circuitry, the UI, and communication circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the speed or length.
Luo teaches further comprising a welding helmet, wherein the welding helmet comprises the control circuitry, the UI, and communication circuitry configured to receive a signal from the sensor indicative of the speed or length ([0027] In certain embodiments, the feedback device 48 may be integrated into a welding torch, welding helmet, or another suitable welding device. UI coupled to control circuitry, which is coupled to the feedback device to indicate weld travel speed).
Zwayer, Blasko, and Luo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding reel systems. It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer and Blasko to incorporate the teachings of Luo to have a welding helmet with a control circuitry, UI, and communication circuitry indicating information of speed or length in order to provide a welding operator an indicator when a weld travel speed is too fast, too slow, within a predetermined range, outside a predetermined range, and so forth (Luo [0027]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Zwayer and Blasko teach the weld monitoring system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, but are silent on wherein the control circuitry is configured determine a heat input based on the travel speed.
Luo teaches the control circuitry is configured to determine a heat input based on the travel speed ([0004] weld travel speed is one parameter used to calculate the heat input to a weld).
It would have been obvious to have modified Zwayer and Blasko to incorporate the teachings of Luo to determine a heat input based on travel speed in order to be able to judge a quality of a weld based on weld travel speed in reference to the heat input to a weld (Luo [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/2025, on Pgs. 7 and 8 of the Remarks, applicant argues that secondary Blasko does not teach “control circuity configured to determine a travel speed of a tool that is coupled to the reel or the cord based on the speed at which the cord is extended or retracted from the reel or length of the cord that is extended or retracted, measured by the sensor.” Applicant argues that Blasko measures “ a speed at which a string is swung back and forth” which is “different than measuring a speed at which a cord is extended or retracted from a reel,” as “a cord may be swung without being extended or retracted at all.” However for further clarification, Figs. 11A and 11B show the embodiment of Blasko where the string or cord 20 is “swung” or as Blasko further describes in [0046], “a horizontal pulled out to a vertical pulled out position,” occurs where the cord is also extracted, so Blasko does teach the situation in which the speed of the cord is recorded in an extension of the cord. Additionally, in [0036], Blasko teaches the process is able to “detect the acceleration of the extended/retracted motion of the cord. That is, knowing the length of the string that is pulled in a unit time, as tracked by internal clock mechanism controlled by a microprocessor, a string acceleration may be determined to provide additional display control,” where in Blasko it is taught that the knob 22 is used as a grip, and would have the same acceleration as the retractable cord. And, given that acceleration and speed are related, it is understood that the speed of the knob 22 may be found through the acceleration of the knob, given that “the length of the string that is pulled in a unit time” is found in Blasko. Additionally, as applicant describes “Blasko discusses using the motion and/or cord length detections to control a user interface, rather than to determine a travel speed of a tool attached to the cord,” however, given that Blasko does determine the speed of grip 22 through the use of the cord 20, it is understood to teach the limitation even though Blasko has a different application of the determined quanities. Therefore it is understood that it would have been obvious to modify Zwayer with the teachings of Blasko to teach the above limitation of independent claim 1.
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 ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/9/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761