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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: There are some issues with strict antecedence between plurals and singulars in these claims. With respect to claim 8 and 10 a reference is made to “welding cycle” when the antecedent from claim 1 is “welding cycles.” With respect to claim 9 the statement “one or more pulse packets” would not be correct if there were only one “packet.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, and by dependency claims 2-10:
The claim term “which each have a high-current welding phase” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear to what prior structure “which” is referring to. The most likely interpretation is that “which” refers to the “welding cycles” and this is how the claim has been interpreted for prior art examination.
The claim term “relevant welding cycle being set accordingly” as appears in claim 1 and dependents further renders the claim indefinite as there is no art accepted threshold, measurement, or evaluation for “set accordingly”. The examiner suggests making this explicit such as “set according to” x/y/z variable.
Regarding claim 2, “a plurality of welding cycles” is indefinite as it raises questions as to whether Applicant is introducing new welding cycles not bound by the process of the welding cycles previously recited in claim 1 or if these welding cycles intend to refer back to the welding cycles of claim 1. The Examiner suggests “includes a plurality of the welding cycles”.
Regarding claim 6, the term “ramp-like” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how near a process must be to a “ramp” to be “ramp-like.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The Examiner has cited several examples of relevant patent prior art in the attached 892 form. The most relevant art is Non-Patent Literature deriving from an opposition proceeding in the European Union. Specifically, the operating manual for the GL 503 welding machine (“GL 503”) and the associated oscilloscope output (“Oscilloscope”). GL 503 and the resulting Oscilloscope output do show many of the features of the claimed invention including a high current welding phase and a low-current welding phase (see Oscilloscope noting different output levels) and a notable portion of “reverse polarity HF pulses.” However, these “reverse polarity HF pulses” are not “reverse polarity high-frequency ignition pulses applied for contactless ignition of the welding arc.”
Further, there appears to be no teaching or suggestion from the prior art that moving pulses to different portions of the welding cycle would be predictable.
As such claims 1-10 are not rejected over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" Landrum can be reached at 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights