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 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: “control circuitry” in claims 1 and 15.
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. As noticed in paragraph 0042-0043, the control circuitry 32 includes one or more controller(s) and/or processor(s) 36 that controls the operations of the power supply 12. The control circuitry 32 receives and processes multiple inputs associated with the performance and demands of the system. The processor(s) 36 may include one or more microprocessors, such as one or more "general-purpose" microprocessors, one or more special-purpose microprocessors and/or ASICS, one or more microcontrollers, and/or any other type of processing and/or logic device. For example, the control circuitry 32 may include one or more digital signal processors (DSPs). The control circuitry 32 may include circuitry such as relay circuitry, voltage and current sensing circuitry, power storage circuitry, and/or other circuitry, and is configured to sense the primary power 22 received by the power supply 12. The example control circuitry 32 includes one or more memory device(s) 38. The memory device(s) 38 may include volatile and/or nonvolatile memory and/or storage devices, such as random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), flash memory, hard drives, solid state storage, and/or any other suitable optical, magnetic, and/or solid-state storage mediums.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raudsepp (US 2015/0273614).
Regarding claim 1, Raudsepp teaches a welding system (Fig. 1), comprising: a welding power supply (part of 16) configured to convert input power to welding power (para. 0120); a wire feeder (35, 150) configured to feed welding wire to a welding torch (18); and control circuitry (31) configured to: in response to an initiation of a welding process, control the wire feeder to feed the welding wire at a first rate while controlling the welding power supply to output the welding power to initiate a welding arc (para. 0160; 0169; t0-t1; as shown in Fig. 7a-7b); in response to initiation of the welding arc, control the wire feeder to increase a feed rate of the wire feeder from the first rate to a second rate (para. 0162; 0170; t1-t3 as shown in Fig. 7a; t1-t2 or t2-t3 or t3-t4 or t1-t4 as shown in Fig. 7b); and in response to determining that a temperature profile of a heated portion of the welding wire has stabilized, control the wire feeder to change the feed rate of the wire feeder from the second rate to a target wire feed speed (para. 0163; 0171; as shown in Fig. 7a-7b).
Regarding claim 3, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine that the temperature profile of the heated portion has stabilized in response to the wire feeder outputting the welding wire at the second rate for at least a threshold time (para. 0162-0163; 0170-0171; as shown in Fig. 7a).
Regarding claim 4, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 3, further comprising a preheating power supply (part of 16 and/or power source to pre-heat the cold wire; p.0121) configured to output preheating power to preheat a portion of the welding wire located prior to a stickout portion along a travel path of the welding wire (as shown in Fig. 1; para. 0120-0121), wherein the control circuitry is configured to set the threshold time based on the preheating power (power= voltage x current; the current is adjusted by adjusting the wire feed speed and its time period; as shown in Fig. 7a-7b; para. 0023; 0160-0163; 0169-0171).
Regarding claim 5, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the second rate is based on a diameter of the welding wire (para. 0073).
Regarding claim 6, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the second rate is about 90% of the expected stable arc phase hot wire speed (para. 0162; 0170).
Raudsepp fails to disclose wherein the second rate is between 200 inches per minute and 600 inches per minute.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed second rate range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 6, wherein the second rate is about 90% of the expected stable arc phase hot wire speed (para. 0162; 0170).
Raudsepp fails to disclose wherein the second rate is between 400 inches per minute and 600 inches per minute.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed second rate range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 6, wherein the target wire feed speed is an expected stable arc phase hot wire speed (para. 0037; 0163; 0171).
Raudsepp fails to disclose wherein the target wire feed speed is more than 500 inches per minute.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed target wire feed speed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 8, wherein the target wire feed speed is an expected stable arc phase hot wire speed (para. 0037; 0163; 0171).
Raudsepp fails to disclose wherein the target wire feed speed is more than 600 inches per minute.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed target wire feed speed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured to, after initiation of the welding arc but prior to increasing the feed rate of the wire feeder from the first rate to the second rate:
control a welding current of the welding power based on a first target current (para. 0027; 0160; 0169; current is controlled by controlling the wire feed speed to be a first rate); and increase the welding current from the first target current to increase an arc length of the welding arc to a target length (para. 0051; also, in Fig. 7b, if using t3-t4 as the second rate recited in claim 1, the current is adjusted by changing the wire feed speed during periods t1-t2 or t2-t3 prior to increase the wire feed speed to the second rate at t3-t4).
Regarding claim 11, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 10, wherein the control circuitry is configured to change to a voltage-controlled control mode when increasing the feed rate from the first rate after increasing the welding current from the first target current (para. 0027; 0098; 0129; 0155).
Regarding claim 12, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 10, wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine that the arc length has met the target length based on a voltage of the welding power (para. 0051; 0098; 0129; 0155; voltage is used to determine suitable feed speeds which change the arc length).
Regarding claim 13, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the heated portion of the welding wire is a stickout portion of the welding wire between a welding contact tip and the arc (as shown in Fig. 1; para. 0123).
Regarding claim 14, Raudsepp teaches the welding system as defined in claim 1, wherein the target wire feed speed is higher than the second rate (as shown in Fig. 7a; para. 0162-0163).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: allowable subject matter is indicated for claims 2 and 15-20 because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest a welding system comprising determining that the temperature profile of the heated portion has stabilized in response to the welding current reaching a local minimum and in response to determining that a temperature profile of a heated portion of the welding wire has stabilized, control the wire feeder to change the feed rate of the wire feeder from the second rate to a target wire feed speed as recited in claim 2, or in response to determining that the welding current has reached a local minimum, control the wire feeder to change the feed rate of the wire feeder from the second rate to a target wire feed speed, as recited in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2018/0354051, US 2018/0333798 and US 2017/0165778.
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 11/14/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761