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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622).
Regarding claim 1, Zamuner discloses an electric arc torch, comprising:
a torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
a gas diffuser (Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) extending from a distal side of the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
a contact tip (Fig. 2 #200 contact tip) attached to the gas diffuser (Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) and having a bore (Fig. 2 #202 central wire guide passage) extending along a first axis;
a wire guide (Fig. 2 #22 liner) located within the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle) and having a wire guide channel (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) that extends from a wire receiving end of the wire guide channel to a wire discharge end of the wire guide channel, wherein the wire discharge end is aligned with the bore of the contact tip (The alignment is shown in Fig. 2.);
and a wire electrode conduit (Fig. 2 #70 fixed concentric tube) extending from a lateral side of the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle) and configured to discharge a wire electrode (Fig. 2 W) into the wire receiving end of the wire guide channel and along a second axis.
However, Zamuner does not disclose wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is not greater than 90 degrees.
Nonetheless, Hubinger in the same field of endeavor being welding arc torches teaches wherein an angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is not greater than 90 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis not greater than 90 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 5, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hubinger teaches wherein the angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 6, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Hubinger teaches wherein the angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is between 45 degrees and 75 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 45 degrees and 75 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 7, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Zamuner teaches wherein the wire guide channel (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) has a first curved portion located between the wire receiving end and the wire discharge end (The Fig. 2 #22 liner, which has the wire guide channel, run the length of the Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle. The gooseneck has a curved profile. The liner would be curved in the same way the gooseneck is curved and providing a curve in the wire guide channel.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sigl et al (US 2018/0354056).
Regarding claim 2, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches.
Nonetheless, Sigl in the same field of endeavor being welding arc torches teaches wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches ([0039] lines 7-10 ---" In some example torches, a length of the welding assembly is less than 5 inches. In some examples, a distance between the first and second contact tips is less than 3.5 inches.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side being less than three inches, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zhong et al (CN 201366599 Y).
Regarding claim 3, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end.
Nonetheless, Zhong in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the open wire guide channel as taught by Zhong for the benefit of unique design, novel structure, low cost, excellent functions, convenient use, economic benefit and society effect . (Zhong Page 3)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Oxlade et al (US 2016/0339533).
Regarding claim 8, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), but does not teach wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less.
Nonetheless, Oxlade in the same field of endeavor being arc welding devices teaches wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less ([0023] lines 13-15 ---" A radial transition 80 with a radius of curvature of the angular portion may be anywhere between 25 mm to 55 mm.”; 1mm = 0.0394in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radius of the first curved portion being one inch or less, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 7, further in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116).
Regarding claim 9, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), but does not teach wherein the wire guide channel has a second curved portion located between the first curved portion and the wire discharge end, and wherein the second curved portion is curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion and straightens a bend in the wire electrode caused by the first curved portion.
Nonetheless, Achtner in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches wherein the wire guide channel has a second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) located between the first curved portion and the wire discharge end, and wherein the second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) is curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion and straightens a bend in the wire electrode caused by the first curved portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
507
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the second curved portion as taught by Achtner for the benefit of directing filler material in the proper direction, spacing, rotation and general orientation. (Achtner [0033])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sagi et al (US 4,883,939) and Wright, Jr. et al (US 4,384,188).
Regarding claim 10, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector, and a voltage sense connector extend from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Sagi in the same field of endeavor being arc welding devices teaches wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 1 lines 64-67 ---"Connectors for electric, water and gas, transmission are included in the adaptors, as is a set of guide and cutter assemblies for welding wire.:).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the shielding gas fitting, the cooling liquid fitting, and the welding power connector as taught by Sagi for the benefit of limiting the weight of tool change features that must be carried by a robot arm at all times. (Sagi Col. 1 Background Art)
However, Zamuner in view of Hubinger and Sagi does not teach a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Wright, Jr. in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 5 lines 35-36 ---" A voltage sensor 7 senses the voltage drop across the arc gap 3 through the electrical leads 19 and 20.”; The electrical leads are connected to power supply lines which are connected to the welding torch as shown in Fig. 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the voltage sense connector as taught by Wright, Jr. for the benefit of supplying an electrical signal which indicates the resistance sensed at the arc gap to a high-low regulator. (Wright, Jr. Col. 5 para. 3)
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116) and Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622).
Regarding claim 11, Zamuner discloses an electric arc torch, comprising:
a torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
(Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) extending from a distal side of the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
a contact tip (Fig. 2 #200 contact tip) attached to the gas diffuser (Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) and having a bore (Fig. 2 #202 central wire guide passage) extending along a first axis;
a wire guide (Fig. 2 #22 liner) located within the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle) and having a wire guide channel (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) that extends from a wire receiving end of the wire guide channel to a wire discharge end of the wire guide channel (Fig. 2 #22 liner extends from the right end of the torch body to the contact tip in the gooseneck. The wire guide channel is the center of the liner. The wire guide channel extends from the right end of the torch body to the contact tip in the gooseneck.)
However, Zamuner does not disclose wherein: the wire guide channel has a reverse curve shape formed by a first curved portion and a second curved portion curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion, the first curved portion is located between the wire receiving end and the second curved portion, and is configured to turn a feeding direction of a wire electrode received at the wire receiving end by at least 90 degrees, the second curved portion is located between the first curved portion and the wire discharge end, and the wire discharge end is aligned with the bore of the contact tip.
Nonetheless, Achtner teaches wherein: the wire guide channel has a reverse curve shape formed by a first curved portion (Shown in the figure below) and a second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion (Shown in the figure below), the first curved portion (Shown in the figure below) is located between the wire receiving end and the second curved portion (Shown in the figure below), the second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) is located between the first curved portion (Shown in the figure below) and the wire discharge end (Shown in the figure below), and the wire discharge end is aligned with the bore of the contact tip (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
507
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the second curved portion as taught by Achtner for the benefit of directing filler material in the proper direction, spacing, rotation and general orientation. (Achtner [0033])
However, Zamuner in view of Achtner does not teach the first curved portion is configured to turn a feeding direction of a wire electrode received at the wire receiving end by at least 90 degrees.
Nonetheless, Hubinger does teach that first curve can have an angle of 33 to 90.degree. (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first curved portion being configured to turn a feeding direction of a wire electrode received at the wire receiving end by at least 90 degrees, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 12, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11) and Zamuner teaches further comprising a wire electrode conduit (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) extending from a lateral side of the torch body and configured to discharge the wire electrode into the wire receiving end of the wire guide channel and along a second axis (The Fig. 2 #22 liner, which has the wire guide channel, run the length of the Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle. The gooseneck has a curved profile. The liner would be curved in the same way the gooseneck is curved and providing a curve in the wire guide channel.),
Furthermore, Hubinger teaches wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is not greater than 90 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis not greater than 90 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 13, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12) and Hubinger teaches wherein the angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 55 degrees and 65 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 14, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 12) and Hubinger teaches wherein the angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is between 45 degrees and 75 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis is between 45 degrees and 75 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116) and Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Sigl et al (US 2018/0354056).
Regarding claim 15, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches.
Nonetheless, Sigl teaches wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches ([0039] lines 7-10 ---" In some example torches, a length of the welding assembly is less than 5 inches. In some examples, a distance between the first and second contact tips is less than 3.5 inches.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side being less than three inches, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116) and Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Zhong et al (CN 201366599 Y).
Regarding claim 16, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end.
Nonetheless, Zhong teaches wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the open wire guide channel as taught by Zhong for the benefit of unique design, novel structure, low cost, excellent functions, convenient use, economic benefit and society effect . (Zhong Page 3)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116) and Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Oxlade et al (US 2016/0339533).
Regarding claim 18, Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less.
Nonetheless, Oxlade teaches wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less ([0023] lines 13-15 ---" A radial transition 80 with a radius of curvature of the angular portion may be anywhere between 25 mm to 55 mm.”; 1mm = 0.0394in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radius of the first curved portion being one inch or less, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116) and Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Sagi et al (US 4,883,939) and Wright, Jr. et al (US 4,384,188).
Regarding claim 8, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector, and a voltage sense connector extend from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Sagi teaches wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 1 lines 64-67 ---"Connectors for electric, water and gas, transmission are included in the adaptors, as is a set of guide and cutter assemblies for welding wire.:).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger by incorporating the shielding gas fitting, the cooling liquid fitting, and the welding power connector as taught by Sagi for the benefit of limiting the weight of tool change features that must be carried by a robot arm at all times. (Sagi Col. 1 Background Art)
However, Zamuner in view of Achtner, Hubinger, and Sagi does not teach a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Wright, Jr. in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 5 lines 35-36 ---" A voltage sensor 7 senses the voltage drop across the arc gap 3 through the electrical leads 19 and 20.”; The electrical leads are connected to power supply lines which are connected to the welding torch as shown in Fig. 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Achtner and Hubinger by incorporating the voltage sense connector as taught by Wright, Jr. for the benefit of supplying an electrical signal which indicates the resistance sensed at the arc gap to a high-low regulator. (Wright, Jr. Col. 5 para. 3)
Claim(s) 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622).
Regarding claim 20, Zamuner discloses an electric arc torch, comprising:
a torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
a gas diffuser (Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) extending from a distal side of the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle);
a contact tip (Fig. 2 #200 contact tip) attached to the gas diffuser (Fig. 2 #2 #80 diffuser) and having a bore (Fig. 2 #202 central wire guide passage) extending along a first axis;
a wire guide (Fig. 2 #22 liner) located within the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle) and having a wire guide channel (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) that extends from a wire receiving end of the wire guide channel to a wire discharge end of the wire guide channel, wherein the wire discharge end is aligned with the bore of the contact tip (The alignment is shown in Fig. 2.);
and a wire electrode conduit (Fig. 2 #70 fixed concentric tube) extending from a lateral side of the torch body (Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle) and configured to discharge a wire electrode (Fig. 2 W) into the wire receiving end of the wire guide channel and along a second axis.
However, Zamuner does not disclose wherein an angle between the first axis and the second axis is not greater than 135 degrees.
Nonetheless, Hubinger in the same field of endeavor being welding arc torches teaches wherein an angle (Fig. 2 #33 angle) between the first axis and the second axis is not greater than 135 degrees (Abstract ---“… whereby the wire buffer store is arranged directly after the region of the connection of the tube assembly within the torch body and the tube assembly is arranged at an angle of 33 to 90.degree. to the mid axis of the welding torch.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angular dimension of the electric arc torch of Zamuner by incorporating the angle between the first axis and the second axis not greater than 135 degrees as taught by Hubinger for the benefit of rendering feasible an adjustable connection. (Hubinger [0057])
Regarding claim 24, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), and Zamuner teaches wherein the wire guide channel (The center of the Fig. 2 #22 liner is considered a wire guide channel.) has a first curved portion located between the wire receiving end and the wire discharge end (The Fig. 2 #22 liner, which has the wire guide channel, run the length of the Fig. 1 #10 goose neck and Fig. 1 #12 handle. The gooseneck has a curved profile. The liner would be curved in the same way the gooseneck is curved and providing a curve in the wire guide channel.).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 20, further in view of Sigl et al (US 2018/0354056).
Regarding claim 21, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), but does not teach wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches.
Nonetheless, Sigl in the same field of endeavor being welding arc torches teaches wherein a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side is less than three inches ([0039] lines 7-10 ---" In some example torches, a length of the welding assembly is less than 5 inches. In some examples, a distance between the first and second contact tips is less than 3.5 inches.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a maximum length of the electric arc torch from a proximal side to the distal side being less than three inches, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 20, further in view of Zhong et al (CN 201366599 Y).
Regarding claim 22, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), but does not teach wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end.
Nonetheless, Zhong in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches wherein the wire guide channel is an open channel along its length from the wire receiving end to the wire discharge end (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the open wire guide channel as taught by Zhong for the benefit of unique design, novel structure, low cost, excellent functions, convenient use, economic benefit and society effect . (Zhong Page 3)
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Oxlade et al (US 2016/0339533).
Regarding claim 25, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 24), but does not teach wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less.
Nonetheless, Oxlade in the same field of endeavor being arc welding devices teaches wherein a radius of the first curved portion is one inch or less ([0023] lines 13-15 ---" A radial transition 80 with a radius of curvature of the angular portion may be anywhere between 25 mm to 55 mm.”; 1mm = 0.0394in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a radius of the first curved portion being one inch or less, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 24, further in view of Achtner et al (US 2008/0197116).
Regarding claim 26, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 24), but does not teach wherein the wire guide channel has a second curved portion located between the first curved portion and the wire discharge end, and wherein the second curved portion is curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion and straightens a bend in the wire electrode caused by the first curved portion.
Nonetheless, Achtner in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches wherein the wire guide channel has a second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) located between the first curved portion and the wire discharge end, and wherein the second curved portion (Shown in the figure below) is curved in an opposite direction from the first curved portion and straightens a bend in the wire electrode caused by the first curved portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
507
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the second curved portion as taught by Achtner for the benefit of directing filler material in the proper direction, spacing, rotation and general orientation. (Achtner [0033])
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zamuner et al (US 2007/0062922) in view of Hubinger et al (US 2006/0124622) as applied to claim 20, further in view of Sagi et al (US 4,883,939) and Wright, Jr. et al (US 4,384,188).
Regarding claim 27, Zamuner in view of Hubinger teaches the torch as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), but does not teach wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector, and a voltage sense connector extend from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Sagi in the same field of endeavor being arc welding devices teaches wherein each of a shielding gas fitting, a cooling liquid fitting, a welding power connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 1 lines 64-67 ---"Connectors for electric, water and gas, transmission are included in the adaptors, as is a set of guide and cutter assemblies for welding wire.:).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the shielding gas fitting, the cooling liquid fitting, and the welding power connector as taught by Sagi for the benefit of limiting the weight of tool change features that must be carried by a robot arm at all times. (Sagi Col. 1 Background Art)
However, Zamuner in view of Hubinger and Sagi does not teach a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body.
Nonetheless, Wright, Jr. in the same field of endeavor being welding devices teaches a voltage sense connector extending from the lateral side of the torch body (Col. 5 lines 35-36 ---" A voltage sensor 7 senses the voltage drop across the arc gap 3 through the electrical leads 19 and 20.”; The electrical leads are connected to power supply lines which are connected to the welding torch as shown in Fig. 4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire guide channel of Zamuner in view of Hubinger by incorporating the voltage sense connector as taught by Wright, Jr. for the benefit of supplying an electrical signal which indicates the resistance sensed at the arc gap to a high-low regulator. (Wright, Jr. Col. 5 para. 3)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 17, and 23 are 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.
The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest wherein a surface of the spare wire guide opposite the further wire guide channel closes said open channel.
The closest prior art would be Takahashi et al (US 2006016322). Takahashi teaches a spare wire guide located within the torch body and having a further wire guide channel, but does not teach wherein a surface of the spare wire guide opposite the further wire guide channel closes said open channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761