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 09/16/2025, with respect to claims 4, 7, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 4, 7, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that “a first half joined by a second half by one of fasteners, adhesive and plastic welding, the first and second halves define a groove or passageway for a cable.” In page 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Brown teaches a gap (Figure 9-10, no labeled) between the two piece upper and lower welding arms 615. Furthermore, Moision teaches a junction box 62 attached to the end of the welding arm (shown in figure 1). The combination allows for the junction box allows for the cables to be run through the gap formed between the two piece upper and lower arm. For at least these reasons the rejections below were maintained and updated for the new amendments.
Additionally, the examiner has cited two references, in the conclusion section, that teach a drill plastic case that is two part and leaves a hollow inside that is capable of hold items such as a cable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6573470 B1) in view of Gunner et al. (US 20190054532 A1) both cited on IDS dated 1 June 2022 and in view of Moision et al. (US 9505079 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Brown et al discloses a weld gun (610, Fig. 11) comprising:
at least one weld arm (615) including a 3-dimensional structure (Fig. 11, Col. 10, lines 56-67), and
a welding electrode (640, Fig. 11) supported by the 3-dimensional structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brown et al also teaches a first half joined to a second half by one of fasteners, adhesive and plastic welding, the first half and second half defining at least one of a groove or passageway (“The plates 520 are further connected and maintained in generally parallel relationship by a series of transverse pins 540 and braces 550 to hold the plates in position and to provide transverse reinforcement against buckling of the thin plates 520. The series of plates 520, air gaps 526 and pins 540 and braces 550, as assembled, exhibit sufficient strength in the compressive direction of the weld arms 515.” Col. 10 Lines)
Brown et al is silent on the at least one weld arm including a 3-dimensional printed structure and wherein the cable is a 3-dimensional printed structure, however the 3-dimensional structure as stated in the prior art being a 3-dimensional printed structure is a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based on the product itself and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, MPEP 2113, I.
Gunner et al. discloses that 3-D printing was known for printing structures (“Three-dimensional (3-D) printing, which may also be referred to as additive manufacturing, is a process used to create 3-D objects. The 3-D objects may be formed using layers of material based on digital model data of the object. A 3-D printer may form the structure defined by the digital model data by printing the structure one layer at a time. 3-D printed objects may be almost any shape or geometry.”, ¶0002. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to manufactured by 3D printing as taught by Gunner et al. for the purpose of using a known method of production to product the 3D structure in a cost-effective manner yielding predictable results.
Brown et al is silent on wherein the at least one weld arm includes at least one of a groove or passageway, and further comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode.
Moision et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses a weld gun (50, Fig. 1) comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway (passageway shown in transformer junction box (62, Figs. 1-2) and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode (In contrast, the primary conductor 60 of the present invention for the first time uses a liquid-cooled high voltage (600V) and high current cable that runs from the isolation contactor 72 to the transformer primary terminals 66.” Col. 5, lines 24-28). Since the electrode have to receive current to weld and it was conventional to use cables to provide current to the electrodes, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to have a passage or groove for receiving a power cable as taught by Moision et al. for the purpose of providing current to the electrodes to perform a welding process.
PNG
media_image2.png
520
732
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 1, Brown et al further disclose wherein the 3-dimensional structure is made of a material having insulative properties. The material having insulative properties related to convection heat (“Each of the plates 620 has a series of holes 626 drilled parallel to a side face, substantially parallel to the direction of compression of the weld gun 610. The holes 626 serve the same function as the interstitial voids 526 of the first embodiment, reducing the weight of each of the thick plates 620 and increasing the surface area available for the convection of heat away from the weld gun arms 615”, Col. 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 5, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 1. Brown et al is silent on wherein the 3-dimensional printed structure comprises a carbon fiber or glass fiber impregnated composite material.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a carbon fiber or glass fiber impregnated composite material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 6, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 1. Brown et al is silent on wherein the 3-dimensional printed structure comprises a nonferrous material.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 7, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 6. Brown et al is silent on wherein the nonferrous material includes copper.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, the nonferrous material includes copper, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 8, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 1, Brown et al further disclose wherein the weld arm includes a lattice structure having at least one internal void ((“Each of the plates 620 has a series of holes 626 drilled parallel to a side face, substantially parallel to the direction of compression of the weld gun 610. The holes 626 serve the same function as the interstitial voids 526 of the first embodiment, reducing the weight of each of the thick plates 620 and increasing the surface area available for the convection of heat away from the weld gun arms 615”, Col. 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 9, Brown et al discloses a weld arm (610, Fig. 11) comprising:
at least one weld arm (615, Fig. 11) including a 3-dimensional structure (Fig. 11, Col. 10, lines 56-67), and a welding electrode (640, Fig. 11) supported by the 3-dimensional structure.
Brown et al also teaches a first half joined to a second half by one of fasteners, adhesive and plastic welding, the first half and second half defining at least one of a groove or passageway (“The plates 520 are further connected and maintained in generally parallel relationship by a series of transverse pins 540 and braces 550 to hold the plates in position and to provide transverse reinforcement against buckling of the thin plates 520. The series of plates 520, air gaps 526 and pins 540 and braces 550, as assembled, exhibit sufficient strength in the compressive direction of the weld arms 515.” Col. 10 Lines)
Brown et al is silent on the at least one weld arm including a 3-dimensional printed structure and wherein the cable is a 3-dimensional printed structure, however the 3-dimensional structure as stated in the prior art being a 3-dimensional printed structure is a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based on the product itself and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, MPEP 2113, I.
Gunner et al. discloses that 3-D printing was known for printing structures (“Three-dimensional (3-D) printing, which may also be referred to as additive manufacturing, is a process used to create 3-D objects. The 3-D objects may be formed using layers of material based on digital model data of the object. A 3-D printer may form the structure defined by the digital model data by printing the structure one layer at a time. 3-D printed objects may be almost any shape or geometry.”, ¶0002. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to manufactured by 3D printing as taught by Gunner et al. for the purpose of using a known method of production to product the 3D structure in a cost-effective manner yielding predictable results.
Brown et al is silent on wherein the at least one weld arm includes at least one of a groove or passageway, and further comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode.
Moision et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses a weld gun (50, Fig. 1) comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway (passageway shown in transformer junction box (62, Figs. 1-2) and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode (In contrast, the primary conductor 60 of the present invention for the first time uses a liquid-cooled high voltage (600V) and high current cable that runs from the isolation contactor 72 to the transformer primary terminals 66.” Col. 5, lines 24-28). Since the electrode have to receive current to weld and it was conventional to use cables to provide current to the electrodes, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to have a passage or groove for receiving a power cable as taught by Moision et al. for the purpose of providing current to the electrodes to perform a welding process.
Regarding claim 11, Brown et al modified discloses the weld arm of claim 9. Brown et al further disclose wherein the 3-dimensional structure is made of a material having insulative properties. The material having insulative properties related to convection heat (“Each of the plates 620 has a series of holes 626 drilled parallel to a side face, substantially parallel to the direction of compression of the weld gun 610. The holes 626 serve the same function as the interstitial voids 526 of the first embodiment, reducing the weight of each of the thick plates 620 and increasing the surface area available for the convection of heat away from the weld gun arms 615”, Col. 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 13, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 9. Brown et al is silent on wherein the 3-dimensional printed structure comprises a carbon fiber or glass fiber impregnated composite material.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a carbon fiber or glass fiber impregnated composite material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 14, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 9. Brown et al is silent on wherein the 3-dimensional printed structure comprises a nonferrous material.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 15, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 14. Brown et al is silent on wherein the nonferrous material includes copper.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, the nonferrous material includes copper, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 16, Brown et al modified disclose the weld gun of claim 9, Brown et al further disclose wherein the weld arm includes a lattice structure having at least one internal void ((“Each of the plates 620 has a series of holes 626 drilled parallel to a side face, substantially parallel to the direction of compression of the weld gun 610. The holes 626 serve the same function as the interstitial voids 526 of the first embodiment, reducing the weight of each of the thick plates 620 and increasing the surface area available for the convection of heat away from the weld gun arms 615”, Col. 10, lines 61-67).
Regarding claim 17, Brown et al. discloses a method of making a weld gun arm (615) comprising: fabricating a weld gun arm (615, Fig. 11) and a welding electrode supported by the 3-dimensional structure, the weld gun arm including a lattice structure having at least one internal void (Fig. 11).
Brown et al also teaches a first half joined to a second half by one of fasteners, adhesive and plastic welding, the first half and second half defining at least one of a groove or passageway (“The plates 520 are further connected and maintained in generally parallel relationship by a series of transverse pins 540 and braces 550 to hold the plates in position and to provide transverse reinforcement against buckling of the thin plates 520. The series of plates 520, air gaps 526 and pins 540 and braces 550, as assembled, exhibit sufficient strength in the compressive direction of the weld arms 515.” Col. 10 Lines).
Brown et al. fails to teach or suggest printing a 3-dimensional structure including a lattice structure having at least one internal void; and securing a welding electrode to the 3-dimensional structure; and providing a cable in a groove or passageway of the 3-dimensional structure and electrically coupling the cable to the welding electrode.
Gunner et al. discloses that 3-D printing was known for printing structures (“Three-dimensional (3-D) printing, which may also be referred to as additive manufacturing, is a process used to create 3-D objects. The 3-D objects may be formed using layers of material based on digital model data of the object. A 3-D printer may form the structure defined by the digital model data by printing the structure one layer at a time. 3-D printed objects may be almost any shape or geometry.”, ¶0002. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to manufactured by 3D printing as taught by Gunner et al. for the purpose of using a known method of production to product the 3D structure in a cost-effective manner yielding predictable results.
printing a 3-dimensional structure including a lattice structure having at least one internal void; and securing a welding electrode to the 3-dimensional structure; and providing a cable in a groove or passageway of the 3-dimensional structure and electrically coupling the cable to the welding electrode.
Brown et al is silent on wherein the at least one weld arm includes at least one of a groove or passageway, and further comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode.
Moision et al. in the same field of endeavor discloses a weld gun (50, Fig. 1) comprising a cable at least partially supported in the at least one groove or passageway (passageway shown in transformer junction box (62, Figs. 1-2) and electrically coupled to the welding electrode for supplying electricity to the welding electrode (In contrast, the primary conductor 60 of the present invention for the first time uses a liquid-cooled high voltage (600V) and high current cable that runs from the isolation contactor 72 to the transformer primary terminals 66.” Col. 5, lines 24-28). Since the electrode have to receive current to weld and it was conventional to use cables to provide current to the electrodes, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3-D structure of Brown et al to have a passage or groove for receiving a power cable as taught by Moision et al. for the purpose of providing current to the electrodes to perform a welding process.
Regarding claim 19, Brown et al. discloses the method of claim17, Brown et al is silent on wherein the printing includes printing a nonferrous material.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 20, Brown et al. discloses the method of claim17. Brown et al. is silent on wherein the printing includes printing an insulative material for the 3-dimensional structure and printing conductive material for the cable.
Gunner et al. disclosed that 3-D printing as stated above in claim 1 is convention, and further disclose the use of metal powder using during the manufacturing process (¶0025). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3-dimensional structure to comprise a nonferrous material, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190091819 A1 – Mori and US 20180021905 A1 – Furusawa does teach a drill plastic case that is two part and leaves a hollow inside that is capable of hold items such as a cable.
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 KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 W 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights