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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings filed 12 March 2026 have overcome the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Claim amendments have overcome the Claim objection. The Claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s Claim amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections. The 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 16 under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the prior-art rejections. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12 March 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 7, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending.
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 the following:
“components suitable for supporting an arc process,” in claim 1
A review of the instant specification provided sufficient details regarding the corresponding structure of the “internal components”, as recited in claim 1. Specifically, paragraph [0030] of the instant publication characterizes the internal components as “e.g., electric components for receiving and/or generating power and/or communication/control signals.”
“power supply components suitable for supporting arc process operations,” as recited in claim 7.
A review of the instant specification provided sufficient details regarding the corresponding structure of the “internal components”, as recited in claim 7. Specifically, paragraph [0030] of the instant publication characterizes the internal components as “e.g., electric components for receiving and/or generating power and/or communication/control signals.”
“arc processing components,” as recited in claim 16
A review of the instant specification provided sufficient details regarding the corresponding structure of the “arc process component”, as recited in claim 16. Specifically, paragraph [0030] of the instant publication characterizes the internal components as “e.g., electric components for receiving and/or generating power and/or communication/control signals.”
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 § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Novo et al. (US-20070090163-A1) in view of Nelson (US-20200023474-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Di Novo teaches an arc process component (welder W, fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (housing 10, fig. 1) that encases internal components (“welding circuit,” para 0007) suitable for supporting an arc process operation (“TIG welder, plasma arc welder, MIG welder, STT welder, MAG welder,” para 0007), the housing including one or more exterior panels (top 12, sides 14 and 16, back 17, and control panel 20, fig. 1), which include a front panel (control panel 20, fig. 1), a rear panel (back 17, fig. 4) and a side panel (side 14, fig. 1); and
a connector assembly (connector box 110, fig. 3) disposed on the side panel (side 14, fig. 3) of the one or more exterior panels, the connector assembly having a first side (left side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 below) and a second side (right side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 below) that are both in a position that is laterally spaced from the front panel and the rear panel (the left side of box 110 is spaced from the front panel and the rear panel; the right side is spaced from the front panel but is not spaced from the rear panel), the connector assembly including one or more sockets (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3) exteriorly accessible from the side panel (the connectors are exteriorly accessible from the left of side 14 where the holster 70 is located, fig. 2), each socket having a socket axis (the connectors 118, 120, and 122 are construed as having a horizontal axis) angled with respect to the side panel (the side panel is also construed as having an axis that is horizontal) at an angle between zero and 60 degrees (the axes are construed as being parallel or having a relative angle of zero degrees).
Di Novo, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
821
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Di Novo does not explicitly disclose a second side that is in a position that is laterally spaced from the rear panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Nelson teaches a second side (left side of panel 46C, annotated in fig. 1 below) that is in a position that is laterally spaced from the rear panel (rear part of vehicle 16, annotated in fig. 1 below).
Nelson, figs. 1 (annotated) and 4
PNG
media_image2.png
1548
2473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
450
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Nelson, by making the connector box 110, as taught by Di Novo, modular, as taught by Nelson, and by moving the connector box 110 to the left, closer to the holster 70, as taught by Di Novo in fig. 2, in order to place the welding connector outputs closer to the welding holster, for the advantage of mounting the power, weld, battery charge, and control connections at a point of use that is near to the associated equipment, tools, and workspace used in welding, which is beneficial for an operator (Nelson, paras 0010 and 0045).
Regarding claim 2, Di Novo teaches wherein the connector assembly (connector box 110, fig. 3) comprises a cover (box door 112 and space inside the side 14, which the box 110 fits into, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Di Novo teaches wherein the cover defines a depression extending into the side panel (space inside the side 14, which the box 110 fits into, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Di Novo teaches wherein the cover is integrated into the side panel (door is connected by a hinge and the space inside the side 14 is part of the side 14; construed as being “integrated”).
Regarding claim 7, Di Novo teaches an arc process power supply (welder W, fig. 1; “current, voltage, power,” para 0007) comprising:
a power supply housing (housing 10, fig. 1) that encases internal components (“welding circuit,” para 0007) suitable for supporting arc process operations (“TIG welder, plasma arc welder, MIG welder, STT welder, MAG welder,” para 0007), the power supply housing including one or more exterior panels (top 12, sides 14 and 16, back 17, and control panel 20, fig. 1), which include a front panel (control panel 20, fig. 1), a rear panel (back 17, fig. 4), and a side panel (side 14, fig. 1); and
a connector assembly (connector box 110, fig. 3) including a plurality of sockets (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3 and connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) disposed on the side panel of the one or more exterior panels (the connectors are on the exterior side of side 14, fig. 3) and exteriorly accessible from the side panel (the connectors are exteriorly accessible from the side 14, fig. 2), the connector assembly having a first side (left side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 above) and a second side (right side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 above) that are both laterally spaced from the front panel and the rear panel (the left side of box 110 is spaced from the front panel and the rear panel; the right side is spaced from the front panel but is not spaced from the rear panel).
Di Novo does not explicitly disclose a second side that is laterally spaced from the rear panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Nelson teaches a second side (left side of panel 46C, annotated in fig. 1 above) that is laterally spaced from the rear panel (rear part of vehicle 16, annotated in fig. 1 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Nelson, by making the connector box 110, as taught by Di Novo, modular, as taught by Nelson, and by moving the connector box 110 to the left, closer to the holster 70, as taught by Di Novo in fig. 2, in order to place the welding connector outputs closer to the welding holster, for the advantage of mounting the power, weld, battery charge, and control connections at a point of use that is near to the associated equipment, tools, and workspace used in welding, which is beneficial for an operator (Nelson, paras 0010 and 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Di Novo teaches wherein the plurality of sockets (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3 and connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) comprises: a first socket (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3) facing a first direction (left direction, fig. 2) along the side panel (panel 14, fig. 2), generally towards the front panel of the one or more exterior panels of the power supply housing (towards the control panel 20, fig. 1); and a second socket (connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) facing a second direction (right direction, fig. 2) along the side panel (panel 14, fig. 2), the second direction being opposite the first direction, generally towards the rear panel of the one or more exterior panels of the power supply housing (with the box 110 moved to the left in fig. 2 based on the modification taught by Nelson, the connectors 130, 132, and 134 would face towards the back 17, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Di Novo teaches wherein the first socket is one socket of a first set of sockets socket (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3) facing the first direction (left direction, fig. 2) and the second socket is one socket of a second set of sockets (connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) facing the second direction (right direction, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Di Novo teaches wherein the side panel (side 14, fig. 3) comprises: a depression in which the connector assembly is disposed (space inside the side 14, which the connector box fits into, fig. 3), the depression defining an access path to the plurality of sockets (the space is construed as being an access path for connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Di Novo teaches wherein the power supply housing (housing 10, fig. 1) defines an front-to-back footprint (interval between back 17 and control panel 20, fig. 1), and the connector assembly (connector box 110, fig. 3) is positioned on the side panel (side 14, fig. 1) so that rigid plug segments of cables (connectors 118, 120, and 122 have rigid plug segments for cables 92, 94, and 96, fig. 3) connected to the connector assembly remain within a front-to-back footprint (these rigid plug segments are located between the back 17 and the control panel 20, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Di Novo teaches connector assembly (connector box 110, fig. 1) comprising:
a first set of sockets (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3) disposed on a first side of the connector assembly (left side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 above) facing a first direction (towards the control panel 20, fig. 1); and
a second set of sockets (connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) disposed on a second side of the connector assembly (right side of box 110, annotated in fig. 2 above) facing a second direction opposite the first direction (in the opposite direction of the control panel),
wherein each socket in the first set of sockets and each socket in the second set of sockets are configured to receive a plug of a cable (plug for cables 216, 218, and 243 in fig. 4 and cables 92, 94, and 96 in fig.3 that connect with their respective connectors) such that the plug extends substantially along a side panel of a housing (in the horizontal direction, the plugs extend parallel to the side 14, figs. 3 and 4) of an arc process component (“welding circuit,” para 0007), wherein the first set of sockets (connectors 118, 120, and 122, fig. 3) and the second set of sockets (connectors 130, 132, and 134, fig. 4) are disposed on (the connectors are on the exterior side of side 14, figs. 3-4) and exteriorly accessible from the side panel of the housing (the connectors are exteriorly accessible from the side 14, fig. 2), the first side and the second side of the connector assembly are laterally spaced from a front panel (control panel 20, fig. 1) and the rear panel (back 17, fig. 4; “back 17 of welder housing 10,” para 0040; construed as being a panel; the left side of box 110 is spaced from the front panel and the rear panel; the right side is spaced from the front panel but is not spaced from the rear panel)
Di Novo does not explicitly disclose a second side that is laterally spaced from the rear panel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Nelson teaches a second side (left side of panel 46C, annotated in fig. 1 above) that is laterally spaced from the rear panel (rear part of vehicle 16, annotated in fig. 1 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Nelson, by making the connector box 110, as taught by Di Novo, modular, as taught by Nelson, and by moving the connector box 110 to the left, closer to the holster 70, as taught by Di Novo in fig. 2, in order to place the welding connector outputs closer to the welding holster, for the advantage of mounting the power, weld, battery charge, and control connections at a point of use that is near to the associated equipment, tools, and workspace used in welding, which is beneficial for an operator (Nelson, paras 0010 and 0045).
Regarding claim 17, Di Novo teaches wherein when the plug (connector of cables 92, 94, or 96, Fig. 3) is received in a socket of the first set of sockets (“front connectors 118, 120, [or] 122”, paragraph [0038] and Fig. 3) or a socket of the second set of sockets, the plug extends substantially parallel (parallel) to the housing (side 14, Fig. 3; examiner notes that the limitation “substantially” is defined in paragraph [0073], which states “a deviation within reasonable limits from an exact value should be accepted, because a skilled person in the art will understand that such a deviation from the values indicated is inevitable due to measurement inaccuracies, etc. The same applies to the terms ‘about’ and ‘around’ and ‘substantially’”).
Regarding claim 18, Di Novo teaches wherein each socket of the first (“front connectors 118, 120, [or] 122”, paragraph [0038] and Fig. 3) and second sets of sockets (“rear face of cable connector box 110 includes several accessory connectors 130, 132, 134”, paragraph [0039]) extends along a corresponding socket axis (axis normal and positioned center to the connectors), wherein an angle between each socket axis and the housing (side 14, Fig. 3) is about zero degrees to 60 degrees (zero degrees, Figs. 2-4; examiner notes that the limitation “about” is defined in paragraph [0073], which states “a deviation within reasonable limits from an exact value should be accepted, because a skilled person in the art will understand that such a deviation from the values indicated is inevitable due to measurement inaccuracies, etc. The same applies to the terms ‘about’ and ‘around’ and ‘substantially’”).
Regarding claim 19, Di Novo teaches wherein when the plug (connector of cables 92, 94, or 96, Fig. 3) is received in a socket of the first set of sockets (“front connectors 118, 120, [or] 122”, paragraph [0038] and Fig. 3) or a socket of the second set of sockets, the plug (Fig. 3) extends along the corresponding socket axis (axis normal and positioned center to the connectors).
Claims 5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Novo et al. (US-20070090163-A1) in view of Nelson (US-20200023474-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Griffin (US-6081423-A).
Regarding claim 5, Di Novo teaches wherein the rear panel (back 17, fig. 4) defines an air inlet (vent 240, fig. 4) into the housing (para 0042). Di Novo does not explicitly disclose the front panel defines an air outlet from the housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Griffin teaches the front panel (front panel 14, fig. 1) defines an air outlet (air outlet openings 28, fig. 1) from the housing.
Griffin, figs. 1-2
PNG
media_image4.png
686
486
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Griffin, by using a front panel 14 with air outlet openings 28, as taught by Griffin, under the control panel 20, as taught by Di Novo, in order to providing cooling air from an air inlet to an air outlet along a flow path lengthwise through the cabinet, for the advantage of cooling the electrical components inside the cabinet, which can generate large amounts of heat (Griffin, column 1, lines 59-66 and column 2, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 12, Di Novo teaches wherein the one or more exterior panels (top 12, sides 14 and 16, back 17, and control panel 20, fig. 1) include an air inlet (vent 240, fig. 4) and a human machine interface (HMI) (control panel 20, fig. 1).
Di Novo does not explicitly disclose the one or more exterior panels include an air outlet.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Griffin teaches the one or more exterior panels (front panel 14, fig. 1) include an air outlet (outlet openings 28, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Griffin, by using a front panel 14 with air outlet openings 28, as taught by Griffin, under the control panel 20, as taught by Di Novo, in order to providing cooling air from an air inlet to an air outlet along a flow path lengthwise through the cabinet, for the advantage of cooling the electrical components inside the cabinet, which can generate large amounts of heat (Griffin, column 1, lines 59-66 and column 2, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Di Novo in view of Nelson and Griffin as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Di Novo teaches wherein one or more exterior panels that include the air inlet (vent 240, fig. 4) and the human machine interface (HMI) (control panel 20, fig. 1) are the front panel (control panel 20, fig. 1) and the rear panel (vent 240 is on the back 17, fig. 4). Additionally, Griffin teaches wherein one or more exterior panels that include the air outlet (outlet openings 28, fig. 1) are the front panel (front panel 14, fig. 1).
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Novo et al. (US-20070090163-A1) in view of Nelson (US-20200023474-A1) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Srba (US-4942281-A).
Regarding claim 11, Di Novo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the side panel is removable from the power supply housing and removing the side panel removes a cover of the connector assembly from the arc process power supply without removing an entirety of the connector assembly from the arc process power supply.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Srba teaches wherein the side panel (panel 26, fig. 1) is removable from the power supply housing (column 6, lines 2-3) and removing the side panel removes a cover of the connector assembly (“power block,” column 6, line 4; the panel 26 is construed as a cover for the power block and the power block is construed as still being “exteriorly accessible” when the panel is removed or raised) from the arc process power supply (system 10, fig. 1) without removing an entirety of the connector assembly (cables from assembly 18 are inside the panel 26, fig. 1) from the arc process power supply (system 10, fig. 1).
Srba, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
450
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Srba, by using a replaceable panel 26, as taught in fig. 1, on the side 14 that fits over the connector box 110, as taught in fig. 3 of Di Novo, in order to use a panel that can be raised and removed so that the cable connections can be accessed, and the cables can be either connected or disconnected depending up on the ratings of the hand-held torch that is used (Srba, column 6, lines 1-23).
Regarding claim 15, Di Novo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the internal components suitable for supporting the arc process operations are disposed adjacent to the side panel so that the connector assembly disposed on the side panel is closer to the internal components than the front panel and the rear panel of the one or more exterior panels of the power supply housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Srba teaches wherein the internal components suitable for supporting the arc process operations (“components ,” column 9, line 50; “current source control circuitry,” column 5, lines 46-47; construed as being located behind panels 22 and 24, fig. 5) are disposed adjacent to the side panel (panel 192, fig. 5) so that the connector assembly (arrangement 212, fig. 6) disposed on the side panel is closer to the internal components than the front panel and the rear panel of the one or more exterior panels of the power supply housing (panel 192 is closer to panels 24 and 22 than the right and left ends of the cabinet 20, fig. 5; construed such that the arrangement 212, which is located in the middle of the cabinet, is closer to the circuits for the panels 22 and 24 in fig. 5 than the right and left ends of the cabinet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Srba, by placing the welding circuit, as taught by Di Nov, closer to middle of the welder instead of at the left and right ends of the welder, as taught by Srba, so that the cable connections in the welding circuit can be accessed in the center, facilitating access so that the cables can be connected or disconnected depending up on the ratings of the hand-held torch that is used (Srba, column 6, lines 1-23).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Di Novo et al. (US-20070090163-A1) in view of Nelson (US-20200023474-A1) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Klein (US-20200298330-A1).
Di Novo teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose a set of lug connectors disposed between two set of sockets.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electric generators for arc welders, Klein teaches a set of lug connectors (fig. 2 is construed as a “lug connector”) disposed between two set of sockets (pole contact devices 5 and 6, fig. 1; para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Di Novo, in view of the teachings of Klein, by using the pole contact device, as taught by Klein, at the front connectors 118, 120, 122, 130, 132, and 134, as taught by Di Novo, in order to use a connecting device with a releasable mechanical connection and an electrical contact, that extends into the rear housing and protrudes a short distance beyond the housing, for the advantage of keeping the connecting device within the projection of the housing such that it does not protrude beyond the housing (Klein, paras 0011-0012).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 March 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Di Novo combined with Nelson.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 on 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights