DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/04/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 10, 18, and 19 have been amended; claims 5, 9, and 14 been cancelled and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al. (US 10,722,971) in view of Schwanbom et al. (DE 3135455).
With regard to claims 1, 10, and 18, Mitra teaches a method of operating/apparatus comprising a plasma cutting torch (10, FIG. 1), providing a plasma cutting torch tip (11) at a distance from a workpiece to initiate a piercing or cutting operation (“As discussed below, gases can be delivered to the torch, for example as plasma gases or shield gases, in various sequences in order to implement the torch operation techniques described herein, including torch initiation, workpiece piercing, or cutting sequences.”, col. 14, ln. 49-53); providing a supply of a first fluid (“shield gas”, FIG. 3) and a second fluid (“plasma gas”, FIG. 3), wherein valves (405/205) are joined to the plasma cutting torch tip by a fluid line (FIG. 2) and the valves (405/205) are positioned proximate the plasma cutting torch (10)(see FIG. 2); and during the piercing or cutting operation, switching the valve according to a first pattern to provide a mixture of the first fluid and the second fluid to the plasma cutting torch tip (“Of course, other combinations are possible. Gas supplies other than those illustrated can be used, and various techniques known to those of skill in the art can be used, e.g., to mix different gas sources. For example, a plasma gas mixture can be formed by mixing methane and H35 using techniques and instrumentation (not shown) known to the skilled artisan. In addition to the mixing techniques described above using crossover lines 730 and 732, additional gas supplies can be added adjacent the torch and these additional gas supplies can be controlled using programmable control valves. For example, some embodiments include adding a reducing gas stream (such as methane) to the shield gas between programmable control valve 405 and sensor 410, such that the flow of the reducing gas is controlled with a programmable control valve.”, col. 14, ln. 21-35) with a periodicity of one second or less (“valves described herein can have improved response times, such as on the order of about 5 milliseconds to about 40 milliseconds.”, col. 13, ln. 1-5).
Although Mitra does teach multiple fluid lines (201/401) coupled to valves (205/405), Mitra does not teach a single valve receiving both fluid lines and the valve connected via a common line to the torch tip and non-electrical pneumatic lines. However, Schwanbom directed toward the same problem of providing a single valve with multiple inputs and a single output teaches a multi-way single valve (3) connected to multiple feed lines (1, 2) with a single output (common line) which is controlled by a control (I) and Schwanbom further teaches the limitation of utilizing non-electrical pneumatic lines (“For generating the pneumatic control signal for the two-way valve 3, instead of the pulse generator I in FIG. 1, the pneumatic one indicated in FIG flip-flop circuit can be used.”, (Schwanbom: pg. 2, ln. 43-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Mitra reference, such that a single valve receiving both fluid lines and the valve connected via a common line to the torch tip and non-electrical pneumatic lines, as suggested and taught by Schwanbom, for the purpose of providing a single valve to the plasma torch of Mitra that is controllable for providing a desired degree of mixing. With regard to claims 10 and 18, the claims include somewhat similar limitations to those of claim 1. However, claim 10 is presented as an apparatus which include one or more computer processors, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions to implement the functional limitations recited in claim 1, and it is submitted that the limitations of a processor and readable storage media are inherent limitations of Mitra required to perform the claimed functional limitations as FIG. 4 explicitly illustrates a PWM control circuit blow and the citation states “the arc voltage estimation implementation does not require additional hardware and requires very little software and computational overhead”, and claim 1 of the prior art citation explicitly recites “at least one processor”. Furthermore, as claim 18 is presented as an apparatus, the arguments presented above with regard to claim 10 over the cited prior art are equally applicable here.
With regard to claims 3 and 12, Mitra teaches an additional one or more fluids are provided to the valve, and wherein switching the valve according to the pattern further includes providing a mixture of the first fluid, the second fluid, and the additional one or more fluids to the plasma cutting torch tip (“In some embodiments, the gas mixture delivered during the piercing sequence comprises a plasma gas comprising argon and a shield gas comprising oxygen, and the beginning a cutting sequence comprises delivering a second gas mixture to surround the arc comprising a plasma gas comprising nitrogen and a shield gas comprising argon. In some embodiments, the gas mixture comprising the inert gas is delivered from a metering console located on or near the plasma arc torch.”, col. 6, ln. 38-47).
With regard to claims 4 and 13, Mitra teaches the first fluid or the second fluid is selected from a group of: a cutting fluid, a shield fluid, water, and oxygen (“In some embodiments, the gas mixture delivered during the piercing sequence comprises a plasma gas comprising argon and a shield gas comprising oxygen, and the beginning a cutting sequence comprises delivering a second gas mixture to surround the arc comprising a plasma gas comprising nitrogen and a shield gas comprising argon. In some embodiments, the gas mixture comprising the inert gas is delivered from a metering console located on or near the plasma arc torch.”, col. 6, ln. 38-47).
With regard to claims 6 and 15, Mitra teaches transitioning to a second pattern during the piercing or cutting operation, wherein the valves are switched differently according to the second pattern than according to the first pattern (“In some cases, the gases (e.g., shield or plasma gases) can be changed from a piercing set of gases, to a cutting set of gases. For example, during the piercing sequence, a gas mixture can be delivered having an inert (e.g., argon or nitrogen) gas as a plasma gas and/or a shield gas to surround the plasma. Upon completion of piercing, the gases can be changed to a cutting gas configuration.”, col. 29, ln. 43-49) and Schwanbom teaches utilizing a single valve for combining multiple fluid sources concurrently as detailed above.
With regard to claims 7 and 16, Mitra teaches the invention as claimed but does not teaches a pilot pressure regulator is provided between the valve and an outlet of the plasma cutting torch tip to reduce an influence of pulsation pressure effects on the piercing or cutting operation; however, Schwanbom teaches “two gas components are controlled by a back pressure regulator and an associated adjustable throttle is fed to a common inlet pressure regulator, which maintains a constant pressure in the mixed gas line.”, and accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Mitra reference, to include the backpressure regulator of Schwanbom between the valve and the outlet of the plasma cutting torch tip for the purpose of providing a consistent pressure to achieve a desired welding function.
With regard to claims 8 and 17, Schwanbom teaches the valve is selected from a group of: a two-port, two-position valve, a three-port, two-position valve, a four-port, three-position valve, and a shuttle valve (“two-way control valve 12”).
With regard to claim 19, Mitra teaches the valves (405/205) are located proximate the plasma cutting torch tip (11) (FIG. 1 & 2) and further adapted by the secondary citation as detailed above regarding the modification above regarding the limitation of a single valve.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al. (US 10,722,971) and Schwanbom et al. (DE 3135455) as detailed above, and further in view of Wada et al. (US 2018/0290229)
With regard to claims 2, 11 and 20, although the primary citation teaches mixing fluids, the citation does not explicitly teach the mixture is provided based on one or more of: a length of the fluid line, a path of the fluid line, and an interior friction parameter of the fluid line. However, Wada which is from the same field of endeavor directed toward a gas supply device, gas supply device having mixing function, welding device and gas supply method teaches the aforementioned limitation(s), namely an interior friction parameter of the line and/or a length of the fluid line: interior friction: “ Using the welding device 10 shown FIG. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Example 1”) and the welding device 100 shown in FIG. 17 (hereinafter referred to as “Comparative Example 1”), the pressure fluctuations in the shield gas supply lines 23, 113 when the shield gas supplied were investigated…”, para. [0178]; length of line: “FIG. 14 is a graph showing the relationship between the instantaneous flow and the elapsed time when the length of the gas supply line located between the solenoid valve and the flow regulating valve in the welding device shown in FIG. 1 is set to 5,300 m, the flow of the shielding gas is 20 L/min, and the pressure setting on the outlet side (exit side) of the gas supply source is 0.2 MPa in Example 3. FIG. 15 is a graph showing the relationship between the instantaneous flow and the elapsed time when the length of the gas supply line located between the solenoid valve and the flow regulating valve in the welding device shown in FIG. 1 is set to 5,300 m, the flow of the shielding gas is 5 L/min, and the pressure setting on the outlet side (exit side) of the gas supply source is 0.2 MPa in Example 4.”, para. [0059]-[0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Mitra reference, such that the mixture is provided based on one or more of: a length of the fluid line, a path of the fluid line, and an interior friction parameter of the fluid line, as suggested and taught by Wada, for the purpose of providing a predetermined mixing rate to achieve desired conditions for a given welding operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are addressed hereafter. The subject prior art rejections have been adapted as appropriate in view of the newly presented claim amendments. As indicated within the prior art rejection explicitly with regard to the newly presented claim limitation of the valve being positioned proximate the plastic cutting torch, Mitra teaches the valves (405/205) are positioned proximate the plasma cutting torch (10) as illustrated in at least FIG. 2. Furthermore, with regard to the newly amended limitation of a first pattern with a periodicity of one second or less using one or more non-electrical pneumatic lines: Mitra further teaches this limitation of a periodicity of one second or less (“valves described herein can have improved response times, such as on the order of about 5 milliseconds to about 40 milliseconds.”, col. 13, ln. 1-5), and Schwanbom in combination with the primary prior art citation (as detailed above) further teaches the limitation of utilizing non-electrical pneumatic lines (“For generating the pneumatic control signal for the two-way valve 3, instead of the pulse generator I in FIG. 1, the pneumatic one indicated in FIG flip-flop circuit can be used.”, (Schwanbom: pg. 2, ln. 43-44).
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights