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 .
The Final Rejection Office Action mailed on January 2nd 2026 is being withdrawn for copy and paste error, such that a new Final Rejection Office Action is being sent out. The period for reply is set to expired 3 months from this new Final office action mailing date.
Claim Status:
Claims 1-14 are pending, of which claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are amended.
Claims 1-11 are being examined as follow:
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 and 7-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US2013/0068744A1S previously cited from IDS) herein set forth as Matsui, in view WO2006089322 (previously cited) herein set forth as WO9322.
Regarding claim 1, Matsui discloses an arc welding method (refer to fig 1 and 3) in which a welding wire (#20, fig.1) serving as a consumable electrode is fed toward a base material (#22, fig.1), and a welding current (refer to the current that generate #21, fig.1) is caused to flow through the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) to alternately repeat a reverse polarity period (refer to fig.3 “welding current” graph) in which the welding wire (#20, fig.1) serves as a positive electrode and the base material (#22, fig.1) serves as a negative electrode, and a positive polarity period in which the welding wire (#20, fig.1) serves as the negative electrode and the base material (#22, fig.1) serves as the positive electrode, and thus generating an arc (#21, fig.1) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) to weld the base material (#22, fig.1), the arc welding method (refer to fig 1 and 3) comprising the steps of:
a) detecting a short-circuit (refer to #10 in fig.1 and “Ic” at beginning of “short circuit period” shown in fig.3) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1); and
b) changing a feeding speed (refer to “wire feeding speed” graph in fig.3) of the welding wire (#20, fig.1) from a first feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF1” shown on fig.3) to a second feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF2” shown on fig.3) on a negative side of the first feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF1” shown on fig.3) when a speed in a direction (refer as “forward feeding” in fig.3) in which the welding wire (#20, fig.1) is fed toward the base material (#22, fig.1) is defined as positive after the short-circuit (refer to #10 in fig.1 and “Ic” at beginning of “short circuit period” shown in fig.3) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) is detected in the step a).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
411
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsui does not explicitly disclose wherein the first feeding speed is temporarily constant.
In the similar field of short-circuit arc welding, WO9322 discloses wherein the first feeding speed is temporarily constant (refer to Page 8, 8th paragraph to Page 9,1st paragraph cited: “…the feed rate of the welding wire 13 can be set to a predefined constant value during variable process phases or variably readjusted. The feed rate may be dependent on different process parameters, wherein the control of the wire feed device 11 is preferably carried out automatically by the control device 4. For example, the higher the welding current I in the short-circuit phase 33 or the arc phase 36, the higher the wire feed speed. When changing the welding current I, the wire feed speed is preferably adjusted accordingly, so that the predetermined values predetermined at the current source 2 or control device 4 can be maintained…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with wherein the first feeding speed is temporarily constant, as taught by WO9322, in order to provide the capability to modify wire feeding speed according to the current and the need of the welding processes, such that the method would be able to adapt to changes to current reading of the arcing and short-circuit processes.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui further discloses comprising the step of:
c) increasing the welding current in absolute value (refer to Id shown in Zoom In fig.3 and t1 to t2 current increased) refer to #10 in fig.1 and “Ic” at beginning of “short circuit period” shown in fig.3) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) is detected in the step a), wherein the step b) is performed (refer to “step b start” annotated in fig. Zoom In fig.3) after the step c) (refer to “Ic” where step c started in fig.3) is started.
PNG
media_image3.png
692
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsui does not explicitly disclose a short-circuit waiting time and the welding current being maintained at a constant value during the short-circuit standby time.
In the similar field of short-circuit arc welding, WO9322 further discloses a short-circuit standby time (referring to #13 where the electrode short-circuited to the #15 where #31b period started); the welding current (refer to #28, fig.2) being maintained at a constant value during the short-circuit standby time (referring to #13 where the electrode short-circuited to the #15 where #31b period started, notice the current #28 during the cited period is maintained at constant).
PNG
media_image4.png
730
535
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with a short-circuit standby time; the welding current being maintained at a constant value during the short-circuit standby time, as taught by WO9322, in order to provide warming but not melting of the electrode during the short-circuit create the possible variant needed for different possible situation required such control (refer to Page 6, 3rd paragraph cited: “…The current I is limited in the ignition phase 31 in one or more stage (s) such that melting of the welding wire 13 cannot take place. In a further possible embodiment variant, the first ignition of the electric arc 15 can take place via a high-frequency voltage signal, a so-called high-frequency ignition …”).
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2,
The modification of Matsui and WO9322 already discloses the short-circuit standby time elapses from the time point when the short-circuit between the welding wire and the base material is detected in the step a), in claim 2 rejection above.
Matsui further discloses wherein the step c) includes the steps of:
d) increasing the welding current (refer to “welding current Aw (A)” show in fig.3 and Zoom In fig.3) in absolute value (refer to “Id” shown in fig.3 and Zoom In fig.3) first at a first rate (refer to “rate 1” annotated in Zoom In fig.3) of current increase, being predetermined,
e) increasing the welding current (refer to “welding current Aw (A)” show in fig.3 and Zoom In fig.3) in absolute value (refer to “Id” shown in fig.3 and Zoom In fig.3) second at a second rate (refer to “rate 2” annotated in Zoom In fig.3) of current increase, being lower than the first rate (refer to “rate 1” annotated in Zoom In fig.3) of current increase, after the step d), and
Wherein the step d) (refer to “time 1” annotated in fig.3) and the step e) (refer to the period from the end of annotated “time 1” to t2 indicated in fig.3) are performed during a short-circuit time (refer as “short-circuit period” indicated in fig.3), which is a time from the start of the short-circuit to opening the short-circuit (refer as t1 to t2 indicated in fig.3), and
wherein the step b) (refer to step b cited in claim 1 rejection above) is performed after the step e) (refer to the annotation in Zoom In fig.3).
Matsui does not explicitly discloses after the short-circuit standby time elapses, then there is a current increase.
In the similar field of short-circuit arc welding, WO9322 further discloses after the short-circuit standby time elapses (refer to #13 to the start of #31b in fig.2) from the time point when the short-circuit between the welding wire and the base material is detected in the step a) (refer to #13 contacting #16 in fig.2 as the time point when the short circuit between the welding wire and the base material detected) then there is a current increase (refer to #31b current increase in fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with after the short-circuit standby time elapses, then there is a current increase, as taught by WO9322, in order to provide the capability to have the current needed to initial the arcing or to generate enough heat to initial the softening of the tip of the electrode.
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui further discloses wherein the step b) is performed after a predetermined short-circuit standby time (refer to “time 1” annotated in Zoom In fig.3) elapses from a time point (refer to Ic to the time in fig.3) at which the short-circuit (refer to #10 in fig.1 and “Ic” at beginning of “short circuit period” shown in fig.3) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) is detected in the step a).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui further discloses further comprising the step of:
k) detecting opening of the short-circuit (refer to “t2” and Paragraph 0023 cited: “…the short circuit is opened at time t2 so that an arc is generated to bring an arc period …”) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1); and
l) returning the feeding speed (refer to “wire feeding speed” graph in fig.3) of the welding wire (#20, fig.1) from the second feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF2” shown on fig.3) to the first feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF1” shown on fig.3) after the opening of the short-circuit (refer to “t2” and Paragraph 0023 cited: “…the short circuit is opened at time t2 so that an arc is generated to bring an arc period …”) between the welding (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) is detected in the step k).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui further discloses wherein the second feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF2” shown on fig.3) increases negatively (refer to the graph of “wire feeding speed” from “WF1” to WF2” is increases negatively) as the first feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF1” shown on fig.3) increases positively (refer to the graph of “wire feeding speed” from “0” time to WF2” is increases positively).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui does not disclose wherein the second feeding speed is in a negative value when the step b) is performed in the reverse polarity period, and is zero or in a positive value when the step b) is performed in the positive polarity period.
In the field of control and regulate pulsed arc welding, WO9322 discloses wherein the second feeding speed is in a negative value when the step b) is performed in the reverse polarity period, and is zero or in a positive value when the step b) is performed in the positive polarity period (refer to #29 in fig.2 and the annotation of “Second speed in negative polarity” and “Second speed in positive polarity”, and both “Second speed” are retracting the wire electrode thus are in negative value).
PNG
media_image4.png
730
535
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with wherein the second feeding speed is in a negative value when the step b) is performed in the reverse polarity period, and is zero or in a positive value when the step b) is performed in the positive polarity period, as taught by WO9322, in order to provide a continuous and non-pausing pulse arc welding, such that the welding process would be faster and without delay.
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Matsui further discloses wherein the second feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF2” shown on fig.3) is a first value (refer to point “WF1”) when the step b) is performed in one period (refer to the first cycle of the pulse), and is a second value (refer to the curve from “WF2” to “WF1” other than “WF2” and “WF1”) between the first feeding speed (referring the speed curve at point “WF1” shown on fig.3) and the first value (refer to point “WF1”) when the step b) is performed in another period (refer to a different cycle of the pulse).
However, Matsui does not disclose the periods are different polarity.
In the field of control and regulate pulsed arc welding, WO9322 discloses the periods are in different polarity (refer to #29 in fig.2 and the annotation of “Second speed in negative polarity” and “Second speed in positive polarity”, and both “Second speed” are retracting the wire electrode thus are in negative value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with the periods are different polarity, as taught by WO9322, in order to provide a continuous and non-pausing pulse arc welding, such that the welding process would be faster and without delay.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US2013/0068744A1S cited from IDS) herein set forth as Matsui, in view WO2006089322 (previously cited) herein set forth as WO9322.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, Matsui further discloses further comprising the steps of:
f) detecting a droplet formed between the welding wire and the base material; and g) reducing and controlling the welding current in absolute value after the step c) is started and the constriction is then detected in the step f).
Matsui or WO9322 does not disclose detecting a constriction having occurred in a droplet
However, a constriction is required for a droplet to occur, and detecting a droplet would also considered as detecting a constriction too.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Matsui’s method with detecting a constriction having occurred in a droplet, for that is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Since the applicant does not state what problem solve or benefit of such limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Matsui’s teaching.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US2013/0068744A1S cited from IDS) herein set forth as Matsui, in view WO2006089322 (previously cited) herein set forth as WO9322, further in view of Henry et al (US2014/0263241A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Henry.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Matsui and WO9322 discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 2, Matsui further discloses further comprising the steps of:
h) detecting a welding voltage (refer to Paragraph 0010 cited: “…the present invention provides an arc welding apparatus to repeat a short circuit and an arc to perform welding between a welding wire and a welding target, includes a primary side rectifying unit, a switching unit, a transformer, a secondary side rectifying unit, a polarity change-over unit, a welding voltage detecting unit, a short-circuit arc deciding unit and a polarity inversion setting unit …”) and welding current (refer to the “welding current” in fig.3) to the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) from a time point at which the short-circuit (refer to #10 in fig.1 and “Ic” at beginning of “short circuit period” shown in fig.3) between the welding wire (#20, fig.1) and the base material (#22, fig.1) is detected in the step a); and
i) reducing and controlling the welding current (refer to the “welding current” in fig.3) in absolute value after the step c) is completed (refer to the assumption in the 112b rejection above) (refer to the “welding current” graph reduce of the current after “Id” in fig.3).
Matsui or WO9322 does not explicitly discloses the use of an integrated power value obtained by integrating power supplied to the welding wire to control the welding.
In the field of polarity pulse arc welding, Henry discloses the use of an integrated power value obtained by integrating power supplied to the welding wire to control the welding (refer to claim 2 cited: “…integrate the sensed power during the negative polarity portion to determine an integrated power value during the negative polarity portion; compare the integrated power value to a predetermined value; and end the negative polarity portion when the integrated parameter value reaches the predetermined value…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the Matsui’s monitoring voltage and current with the henry monitoring “integrated power value”, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of monitoring the welding process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US2013/0068744A1S cited from IDS) herein set forth as Matsui, in view WO2006089322 (previously cited) herein set forth as WO9322, further in view of Henry et al (US2014/0263241A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Henry, and further in view of Hsu et al (US2017/0165778A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Hsu.
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Matsui, WO9322 and Henry discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 5, Matsui, WO9322 or Henry only discloses reaching the predetermined integrated power threshold (refer to Paragraph 0024 cited: “…The rise is performed until the welding current reaches current Ib …” for Matsui and refer to claim 2 cited: “…integrate the sensed power during the negative polarity portion to determine an integrated power value during the negative polarity portion; compare the integrated power value to a predetermined value; and end the negative polarity portion when the integrated parameter value reaches the predetermined value…” for henry), and the integrated power threshold is a fixed value (Examiner note: what kind of threshold is not a fixed value? Then it would not described as “threshold”) .
Matsui or Henry does not explicitly discloses comprising the step of: j) determining whether the integrated power value is greater than the predetermined integrated power threshold.
In the field of welding control, Hsu discloses determining whether the integrated power value is greater than the predetermined integrated power threshold (refer to Paragraph 0214 cited: “…the weld control circuit 2504 may monitor the voltage and current in the preheat section of the electrode wire 114 to determine whether the voltage and current are greater than respective thresholds …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the modified Matsui in view of Henry reaching the threshold with the Hsu determining whether the integrated power value is greater than the predetermined threshold, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of monitoring the welding process.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/clarification filed on September 16th 2025 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 16th 2025 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the new combination of the secondary Prior art WO2006089322 (previously cited) herein set forth as WO9322.
Examiner would like to address applicant’s argument on Matsui in the remark page 3.
Applicant argued: “…Matsui states that a problem with the conventional arc welding control method illustrated in Figure 4 is that in the case where a thin plate having a thickness of 0.6 mm or less is to be welded, for example, an energy input amount to a base metal is large so that burn-through occurs. For this reason, there is a problem in that satisfactory welding cannot be carried out. (See paragraph [0005] of Matsui). Therefore, objects of the arc welding control method illustrated in the Figure 3 are to decrease an energy input amount to a base metal and carry out welding over a thin plate having a thickness of 0.6 mm or less without causing burn-through. (See paragraph [0007] of Matsui)…”, Remark page 3.
Examiner responses: The argument above is unpersuasive.
It is expressed that Matsui teaching of Paragraph 0007 is about decrease a total energy input by manipulate the currents to not need to remain at the peak current all the time to reduce the total energy input. Matsui teachings and figs clearly show that, any others teaching of manipulate the current that is no above the peak current is well within Matsui teaching and compatible to combine, just as the secondary prior art of records cited above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 February 9th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761