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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement set forth in the previous office action filed on 12/31/2025 has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn. Upon further review of the claim language, the claimed inventions are determined to satisfy the unity of invention requirement. Accordingly, examination of all pending claims will proceed in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1, 12 and 13, the limitation “determining a distance or time duration required by the free wire end of the consumable welding wire electrode... until ignition of the welding arc” is not described in the specification as originally filed. The specification does not disclose determining the distance or time duration required by the free wire end of the consumable welding wire electrode until ignition of the welding arc, nor does it otherwise reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of this feature at the time of filing. Therefore, the specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement with respect to this limitation. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: allowable subject matter is indicated for claims 1-13 because even though the prior art (US 9,539,662) teaches monitoring the distance between the consumable welding wire electrode and the workpiece to detect a short-circuit, and re-ignite the arc (abstract; Col. 1, lines 50-67 and Col. 2, lines 1-4; Col. 8, lines 54-67; Col. 9, lines 1-7; Col. 11, lines 64-67; Col. 12; Col. 13, lines 1-7; Fig. 7-8), the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest determining a distance or time duration required by the free wire end of the consumable welding wire electrode until contact or short-circuit with a surface of the workpiece or until ignition of the welding arc; and igniting the welding arc with an ignition energy which is set in dependence upon the determined distance or time duration as recited in claim 1, 12 and 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2008/0149606, US 8,035,059 and EP 0936019.
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 07/10/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights