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 .
Specification
Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See also MPEP 2173.03. In the instant case, paragraph [0037] of the instant publication state: “The root-mean-square value of a electrical variable which varies over time is known to be the quadratic mean of this electrical variable over time. The root-mean-square value of the welding current IS can therefore be calculated, for example, over a period to of a welding cycle SZ. However, it is more advantageous to calculate the root-mean-square value over a plurality of periods tD (for example as a moving average) or to average the root-mean-square values determined for different periods tD”. This runs contrary to the [0036] which states “ideal setting values for the pulse frequency fD and for the welding wire feeding speed vD are determined from a known relationship (characteristic curve K) … By means of the ideal setting values, an ideal root-mean-square value RMSopt of the welding current Is can be determined … an ideal root-mean-square value RMS.sub.opt of the welding current can be determined from the welding current Is together with the ideal pulse frequency fDopt,” because [0037] discuss about conventional way of root-mean-square value is the quadratic mean of this electrical variable over time. This implies the RMS value of a set of values is the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the values, or the square of the function that defines the continuous waveform. However, [0036] requires different methods to obtain RMS value (1) by using ideal setting value (K) to determine root mean square value (RMS) and (2) by using the welding current Is together with the ideal pulse frequency fDopt. In addition, It is also unclear as to how using the above methods (1) and (2) to obtain RMS values without detail explanation (i.e., how to use K to obtain RMS; how to use welding current and pulse frequency to obtain RMS).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “in which at least two welding devices each carry our”, in line 2, should be amended to recite “out”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein a control unit which executes the second pulse welding process determines an ideal root-mean-square value of the second welding current” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Paragraph [0043] of the instant publication states “closed-loop control could also be provided for the root-mean-square value RMS of the welding current IS, in order to set the ideal ratio Vopt as best as possible. For this purpose, a closed-loop controller can be implemented, for example as software in the control unit 7”. In view of the above, the Examiner will interpret a generic computer to read on the “control unit”, as recited in claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a known relationship between the pulse frequency” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the pulse frequency, the first pulse frequency, or the second pulse frequency. (hence, a known relationship in relation to the frequency is not defined). Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations in lines 11-13, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “ideal setting values for the second pulse frequency … determine an ideal root mean square value of second welding current by ideal setting values” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if Applicant intends to use conventional methods to calculate the root-mean-square of a pulsed signal (i.e., the duty cycle and peak values) or a different, novel way of calculating the root-mean-square. A review of the instant specification failed to provide any disclosure of the ideal setting values.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reason.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ideal root-mean-square value of the second welding current” in claim 1 is used by the claim to be calculated by “the ideal setting values [second pulse frequency],” while the accepted calculation is “
I
P
e
a
k
2
” as evidenced by NPL “Root Mean Square”, page 6, attached to this Office Action. Additionally, NPL is silent in regards to a frequency being considered when determining a root mean square value (the table on page 4 shows that the duty cycle D can be considered for pulse train signals). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reason.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “actual root-mean-square value of the second welding current” in claim 1 is used by the claim to be calculated by “welding current with the second pulse frequency,” while the accepted calculation is “
I
P
e
a
k
2
” as evidenced by NPL “Root Mean Square”, page 6, attached to this Office Action. Additionally, NPL is silent in regards to a frequency being considered when determining a root mean square value (the table on page 4 shows that the duty cycle D can be considered for pulse train signals). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an ideal root-mean-square value of the second welding current”, line 5, is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the previously introduced ideal root-mean-square value of the second welding current in claim 1, line 10, or a different element. Line 8 of claim 2 also recites “an ideal root-mean-square value of the second welding current”, which is also unclear for the same reason.
Claims 3-6 and 8 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Comment
A determination on the allowability of the pending claims could not ascertained given the current clarity issues, as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim objection is maintained because improper spelling has not been corrected (i.e., carry our). 37 CFR 1.111b.
Applicant argues “Applicant's representative explained that the "ideal root-mean-square value" represents a kind of set value or target value or desired value, to which the at least one pulsed current parameter of the welding current of the second pulse welding process is controlled, e.g., in a closed or open-loop manner (see 1 [0036] of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0161346). The ideal root-mean-square value is derived from ideal setting parameters - see [0041] of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0161346. In contrast, the "actual root-mean-square value" of the welding current is the root-mean-square value, which is, e.g., currently existing and which may deviate from the ideal root-mean-square value. The actual root-mean-square value of the welding current is derived from actual, non-ideal setting parameters and is the value to be changed in a desired way by changing the welding parameters to reach or approach an ideal operating point - see 1 [0041] and Fig. 5 of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0161346 … objection to specification is moot …” on pages 7 and 9-13 remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because in the instant case, paragraph [0037] of the instant publication state: “The root-mean-square value of a electrical variable which varies over time is known to be the quadratic mean of this electrical variable over time. The root-mean-square value of the welding current IS can therefore be calculated, for example, over a period to of a welding cycle SZ. However, it is more advantageous to calculate the root-mean-square value over a plurality of periods tD (for example as a moving average) or to average the root-mean-square values determined for different periods tD”. This runs contrary to the [0036] which states “ideal setting values for the pulse frequency fD and for the welding wire feeding speed vD are determined from a known relationship (characteristic curve K) … By means of the ideal setting values, an ideal root-mean-square value RMSopt of the welding current Is can be determined … an ideal root-mean-square value RMSopt of the welding current can be determined from the welding current Is together with the ideal pulse frequency fDopt,” because [0037] discuss about conventional way of root-mean-square value is the quadratic mean of this electrical variable over time. This implies the RMS value of a set of values is the square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the values, or the square of the function that defines the continuous waveform. However, [0036] requires different methods to obtain RMS value (1) by using ideal setting value (K) to determine root mean square value (RMS) and (2) by using the welding current Is together with the ideal pulse frequency fDopt. In addition, It is also unclear as to how using the above methods (1) and (2) to obtain RMS values without detail explanation (i.e., how to use K to obtain RMS; how to use welding current and pulse frequency to obtain RMS (i.e., how pulse frequency being factored in the RMS calculation)). In addition, applicant states that “actual root-mean-square value" of the welding current is the root-mean-square value, which is, e.g., currently existing and which may deviate from the ideal root-mean-square value”. However, abstract states “an actual root-mean-square value of the welding current is determined by the welding current with the pulse frequency to be set”. There is nothing in the specification teach or suggest that “actual root-mean-square value” is the root-mean-square value (hence, use the conventional method as discussed in [0037]).
With respect to 112f interpretation is maintained. 37 CFR 1.111 b.
35 USC 112 b is maintained. See explanation in item 1 above (hence, conflict between claim and specification due to terminology inconsistent with accepted meaning). Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights