3rd NON-FINAL REJECTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claim(s) under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kondo (JP 2019093403 A) in view of Hutchison (US 20150114940 A1)
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:
“a setting element” in claim 12. The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “setting element” will be interpreted as any structure capable of setting a value.
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.
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.
Claim 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 further recites the limitations [setting element]. The term “element” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the element sets.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of setting. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
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 1-15 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.
There are numerous antecedent basis issues in the claim set. The Office encourages applicants to thoroughly examine their claim set for the following:
Arc parameter, arc length, arc length parameter, arc parameter sets, effected arc parameter change, different arc parameter changes, effected arc length parameter change, set arc length parameter in claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-14. Applicants interchangeably use these terms throughout the claim set and it is unclear if applicants are reciting something new, different, broad, etc.
“the at least one welding process phase” in claim 1.
“a welding process phase transition” is repeated twice in claim 1.
“the consumable welding wire electrode” in claim 2 and 3, when claim 1 only states “a welding wire electrode.”
“effected arc length change” in claims 3-6. Claim 1 states “effected arc length parameter change.”
The average welding current, the welding voltage, the welding current in claim 2.
The welding current in claim 5.
The parameter data store in claim 7 when claim 6 recites “a parameter data set.”
The two successive different types of welding process phases, the two welding process phases in claims 7 and 13 which is unclear what two different types or two welding process phases are being referred to since the parent claim recites “pairs of successive different types.”
the welding process transition function characteristic curves in claim 14.
the associated stored transition function characteristic curves in claim 14.
Claim 6 recites “associated configurable welding parameters sets of transition welding parameters are stored in tabular form in a parameter data set.” This is effectively stating “a set is stored in a set.” It should be changed to --associated configurable welding parameters sets of transition welding parameters are stored in tabular form--.
Claim 11 recites “wherein for the welding process phases an arc parameter of the welding arc, in particular its arc length can be set.” This sentence is not grammatically correct and it is unclear what applicants are claiming for the arc parameter. Is applicants stating that the arc length is the arc parameter or one of the parameter within the arc parameter. Is the arc parameter referring to the parameter during the welding process phases? For examination, the limitation will be interpreted such that – wherein for the welding process phases there is an arc parameter of the welding arc, and the arc parameter comprises an arc length that can be set--.
Claim 11 the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites “in each case associated arc parameter target values.” The term “associated arc parameter target values” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear if applicants are referring to the arc parameter recited in claim 11, the arc length of the arc parameter, or something else. For examination, it will be interpreted as –in each case the arc parameter target values--.
Claim limitation “setting element” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“Setting element”. The structure of the setting element is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “setting element” will be interpreted as any structure capable of setting a value.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP 2019093403 A) in view of Hutchison (US 2015/0114940 A1).
Claim 1. Kondo discloses a method for stabilizing a welding process phase transition between different types of welding process phases of a welding process (a method of changing the welding voltage when switching between welding methods to stabilize the welding condition, par. 38), wherein the welding process phases comprise different welding parameters (pulse arc welding and short circuit transfer welding, par. 1, Fig. 2),
wherein, at least in the welding process phases, a workpiece (base material 2, Fig. 1) is welded in each case with a welding arc (arc 3, Fig. 1) which extends between a welding wire electrode (welding wire 1) and the workpiece (the welding wire 1 is fed through the welding torch 4 by the rotation of a feeding roll 5 coupled to a feeding motor WM (described later), and an arc 3 is generated between it and the base material 2. A welding voltage Vw is applied between the welding wire 1 and the base material 2, and a welding current Iw is supplied, par. 15), and comprise an arc length
wherein, during a welding process phase transition between successive different types of welding process phases (final transition period t2-t3 and initial transition period t4-t5, par. 32), in the event of a change in the set arc length parameter of the welding arc, parallel thereto at least one transition welding parameter is automatically adapted in dependence upon the effected arc length parameter change in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition (the rate of change in feed rate and rate of change in voltage is set for the transition periods such that the welding state is stabilized based on the change in arc length, par. 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically adapted in dependence…in order to stabilize” includes setting the rate of change for the welding parameters such that the parameters are “automatically” changing at a set rate over the course of the transition).
Examiner’s note: the limitation “in the event of a change” is conditional and therefore does not necessarily require that the prior art read on the limitations that occurs after the conditional statement. For example, the previously applied prior art Huismann would have disclosed claim 1 in spite of it not disclosing the “at least one transition welding parameter is automatically adapted in dependence upon the effected arc length parameter change in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition.”
Kondo does not explicitly state that the arc length parameter may be set.
Hutchison discloses a method of welding wherein the control circuit can set the arc length for a weld process (par. 28).
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 Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Hutchison and set the arc length for the weld phases. Hutchison demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the arc length parameter can be set.
Claim 2. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transition welding parameters comprise at least one of the following:
- a wire advancing rate and/or wire advancing acceleration of the welding wire electrode (rate of change of the feed rate, par. 36),
- an amplitude and/or polarity of the average welding current flowing through the welding wire electrode,
- an amplitude and/or polarity of the welding voltage applied between the welding wire electrode and the workpiece (rate of change of the welding voltage, par. 38); and
- a number and/or frequency of pulses of the welding current flowing through the welding wire electrode.
Claim 3. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein, with increasing or decreasing effected arc length change, a wire advancing rate of the welding wire electrode is automatically increased or reduced as a transition welding parameter in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition (feed rate automatically increases/decreases at a set rate to stabilize the welding process, par. 37).
Claim 4. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, with increasing or decreasing effected arc length changes, an amplitude and/or a duration of the welding current, and/or an amplitude of the welding voltage is/are automatically reduced or increased (welding voltage increases/decreases at a rate to stabilize the welding process, par. 38).
Claim 8. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein for different combinations of pairs of successive different types of welding process phases of the welding process (short circuit to pulse arc and pulse arc to short circuit, Fig. 2), transition function characteristic curves for different transition welding parameters are used to automatically adapt the different transition welding parameters (there are different linear functions or slopes used for the welding parameters based on the different transitions that occur based on combination of welding phases, par. 36-40; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transition function characteristic curves” includes linear functions).
Claim 9. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 8, wherein, in dependence upon the effected arc parameter change and the transition function characteristic curves, parameter values for the different transition welding parameters are calculated during the welding process phase transition and the transition welding parameters are adapted according to the calculated parameter values in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition (based on the transition and the change in feed rate, the welding voltage also has a linear slope in order to stabilize the welding process, par. 36-40).
Claim 10. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding process phases comprise: a short arc welding phase (short circuit transfer welding, par. 1), a long arc welding phase, a pulsed arc welding phase (pulse arc welding, par. 1), a short arc welding phase with forwards or backwards movement, a spray arc welding phase, a welding phase with a rotating welding arc, and/or a transition arc welding phase.
Claim 11. Kondo discloses a welding device (Fig. 1) for welding a workpiece (base material 2) in a welding process which comprises different types of welding process phases which comprise different welding parameters (a method of changing the welding voltage when switching between short circuit transfer welding and pulse arc welding, par. 38), in which the workpiece is welded in each case with a welding arc which extends between a welding wire electrode of the welding device and the workpiece (the welding wire 1 is fed through the welding torch 4 by the rotation of a feeding roll 5 coupled to a feeding motor WM (described later), and an arc 3 is generated between it and the base material 2. A welding voltage Vw is applied between the welding wire 1 and the base material 2, and a welding current Iw is supplied, par. 15),
wherein for the welding process phases an arc parameter of the welding arc, in particular its arc length
wherein the welding device comprises a controller (various control circuits for controlling the welding parameters, par. 24-27, Fig. 1) which, during a welding process transition (final transition period t2-t3 and initial transition period t4-t5, par. 32) between the different types of welding process phases of the welding process, effects a change in the arc parameter of the welding arc corresponding to the arc parameters set for the welding process phases and at the same time automatically adapts at least one transition welding parameter of a welding current source of the welding device in dependence upon the effected arc parameter change in order to stabilize the welding process transition within the welding process (the rate of change in feed rate and rate of change in voltage is set for the transition periods such that the welding state is stabilized based on the change in arc length, par. 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “automatically adapted in dependence…in order to stabilize” includes setting the rate of change for the welding parameters such that the parameters are “automatically” changing at a set rate over the course of the transition).
Kondo does not explicitly state that the arc length parameter may be set.
Hutchison discloses a method of welding wherein the control circuit can set the arc length for a weld process (par. 28).
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 Kondo to incorporate the teachings of Hutchison and set the arc length for the weld phases. Hutchison demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the arc length parameter can be set.
Claim 15. Kondo in view of Hutchison does not disclose the welding device as claimed in claim 11, having an interface for loading welding parameter sets of the transition welding parameters and/or for loading transition function characteristic curves from a database.
Hutchison further discloses an operator interface (20) wherein the data settings for the weld parameters can be provided or selected by the operator (par. 23).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Hutchison and have an interface for loading welding parameter sets. Doing so would allow the operator to select, adjust, and input the desired welding parameters.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Hutchison as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ogasawara (US 6051807 A).
Claim 5. Kondo in view of Hutchison does not disclose the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, with increasing or decreasing effected arc length change, a number and/or a frequency of pulses of the welding current is/are automatically reduced or increased.
Uecker discloses a welding method wherein when the arc length is elongated the frequency is adjusted (col 6 lines 30-45).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Ogasawara and have the frequency adjust when the arc length is changed. Doing so would improve the responsiveness of an arc length control (abstract, Ogasawara).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Hutchison as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Plottier (US 10201870 B2).
Claim 6. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein for different combinations of pairs of successive different types of welding process phases of the welding process (short circuit to pulse arc and pulse arc to short circuit, Fig. 2), in each case for different arc length changes which can be effected,
Kondo in view of Hutchison does not disclose associated configurable welding parameter sets of transition welding parameters are stored in tabular form in a parameter data set.
Plottier teaches the method of welding wherein a database stores welding parameter in table format (col 7 lines 37-40) and the tables include various parameters such as arc voltage and arc length and use the information stored to correlate with the wire speed (col 7 lines 40-46).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Plottier and have a database which stores the welding parameters. Doing so would allow the user to have a plurality of lookup tables that memorizes welding configurations which helps with efficiency when welding in industrial setting (col 7 lines 65-67, Plottier).
Claim 7. Kondo in view of Hutchison and Plottier discloses the method as claimed in claim 6 wherein in dependence upon the effected arc parameter change and the combination of the two successive different types of welding process phases, the associated welding parameter set is read out from the parameter data store and the corresponding transition welding parameters are adapted in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition between the two welding process phases (the device automatically selects a set of welding parameters based on wire speed, col 8 lines 33-38, Plottier).
Claim 12. Kondo in view of Hutchison does not disclose the welding device as claimed in claim 11, wherein, for the different welding process phases of the welding process, in each case associated arc parameter target values are set for the arc parameters to be used, which can each be adjusted within preset limits manually by a user using a setting element or by an external controller.
Plottier teaches the method of welding wherein the parameters can be adjusted either manually or automatically by the digital means 1 (col 10 lines 31-39).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Plottier and manually or automatically adjust the preset limits. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing a user to select the welding parameters in case there are issues with the control signals or if the user decides to adjust the parameters because of external reasons.
Claim 13. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the welding device as claimed in claim 11, wherein for different combinations of pairs of successive different types of welding process phases of the welding process (short circuit to pulse arc and pulse arc to short circuit, Fig. 2), in each case for different arc parameter changes which can be carried out,
wherein, in dependence upon the effected arc parameter change and the combination of the two successive different types of welding process phases, the associated welding parameter set (different slopes for the welding parameters for the initial transition and final transition, which are based on different combination of welding phases, par. 36-40, Fig. 2)
Kondo in view of Hutchison does not disclose associated configurable welding parameter sets of transition welding parameters are stored in tabular form in a parameter data set and associated welding parameter set is read out from the data parameter store of the welding device and the corresponding transition welding parameters are adapted by the controller of the welding device in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition between the two welding process phases.
Plottier teaches the method of welding wherein a database stores welding parameter in table format (col 7 lines 37-40) and the tables include various parameters such as arc voltage and arc length and use the information stored to correlate with the wire speed (col 7 lines 40-46). Additionally, the device automatically selects a set of welding parameters based on wire speed (col 8 lines 33-38).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Plottier and have a database which stores the welding parameters. Doing so would allow the user to have a plurality of lookup tables that memorizes welding configurations which helps with efficiency when welding in industrial setting (col 7 lines 65-67, Plottier).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Hutchison as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2010/0200553 A1).
Claim 14. Kondo in view of Hutchison discloses the welding device as claimed in claim 11, wherein for the different combinations of pairs of successive different types of welding process phases (short circuit to pulse arc and pulse arc to short circuit, Fig. 2) of the welding process transition function characteristic curves for different transition welding parameters are provided (there are different linear functions or slopes used for the welding parameters based on the different transitions that occur based on combination of welding phases, par. 36-40; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transition function characteristic curves” includes linear functions),
wherein, in dependence upon the effected arc parameter change and the associated stored transition function characteristic curves (there are different linear functions or slopes used for the welding parameters based on the different transitions that occur based on combination of welding phases, par. 36-40; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “transition function characteristic curves” includes linear functions),
Kondo in view of Hutchison parameter values for the different transition welding parameters are calculated during the welding process phase transition by a computing unit of the controller of the welding device and the transition welding parameters are adapted by the controller of the welding device in order to stabilize the welding process phase transition.
Yamazaki teaches a welding device wherein the controller adjust the values based on the previous pulse period (par. 109).
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 Kondo in view of Hutchison to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki and adjust the welding values during the welding process. Doing so would have the benefit of solving the problem of undesired variations in arc lengths and to provide an arc length control technique adapted for pulse arc welding that would suppress the generation of spatters (par. 21-22, Yamazaki).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights