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
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
All objections have been withdrawn.
All of the rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), have been withdrawn.
The rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the use of the phrases “where applicable” in claims 1, 6, 14, and 19, “in the event of” in claim 1, “the determined parameter” in claim 6, “the parameter” in claim 7, “input or output unit” in claims 6 and 16-19, “control unit” in claim 15, “If the arc is extinguished during the polarity reversal” in claim 5 and “optimal striking” in claim 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection was persuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection has been overcome.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 14-20 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 8-10, and 12-13 are as previously presented.
Claim 11 has been canceled.
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 8, and 20 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 8, it is unclear what an “optionally adaptive algorithm” is. There is no definition of an optionally adaptive algorithm in the rest of the disclosure. Paragraph 22 of applicant’s specification is gives examples of adaptive algorithms but does not
Regarding claims 8 and 20, it is unclear what an “adaptive algorithm” is. There is never a definition of what the adaptive algorithm is rather a list of things an adaptive algorithm could be. As such it is indefinite as to what the adaptive algorithm actually is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters (US Publication 2014/0251968).
Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a method for contactlessly striking an arc (30) between an electrode (20) of a torch (10) or welding head and a material surface of a workpiece (50) for a welding process, wherein a first ignition voltage pulse with a first (Ip) or second polarity (In) is generated between the electrode (20) and the material surface, wherein, after having been struck and, where applicable, after a polarity reversal, the arc (30) is maintained with the second polarity (In) or with an alternating polarity (Ip), wherein, in the event of an ignition failure, after the first ignition voltage pulse (Tp), a sequence of ignition voltage pulses is generated according to a sequence pattern until successful striking of the arc ([0028]), wherein the sequence pattern comprises a number of ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (Ip) and a number of ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (In), and wherein an ignition pause is provided between ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (Ip) and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (In).
Regarding claim 2, Peters teaches the sequence patterns of figures 5A and 5B which are defined by an alternating sequence of an ignition voltage pulse with the first polarity (Ip) followed by an ignition voltage pulse with the second polarity (In). Regarding claim 3, Peters teaches the sequence patterns of figures 5A and 5B which are defined by an alternating sequence of a first fixed number of ignition voltage pulses, or one, with the first polarity (Ip) followed by a second fixed number of ignition voltage pulses, or one, with the second polarity (In).
Regarding claim 4, Peters teaches in figures 5A and 5B when the arc (30) is struck following an ignition voltage pulse with the first polarity (Ip), the arc is maintained for a warm-up period ([0026]) with the first polarity (Ip), after which the polarity is reversed to the second polarity (In).
Regarding claims 6-8, Peters teaches at least one parameter that evaluates a quality and/or an ignition behavior of the sequence pattern used or the “pop out” condition, i.e. the loss of the arc (30), and that parameter is stored in the control unit (260) in order to use that information ([0028]). When the “pop out” condition is detected, an alternative sequence pattern is automatically selected with the aid of an algorithm which decides what to do based on whether the waveform was crossing from positive to negative or vice versa ([0029]). The algorithm (Figure 4) adapts to the changing conditions and changes the response based on those conditions.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Peters teaches both an AC welding process in Figure 4 and a DC welding process in Figure 3.
Regarding claim 12, Peters teaches a welding process using an arc welder (Figure 1) which inherently requires the striking of the arc (30) before arc welding.
Regarding claim 13, Peters teaches a sequence pattern (Figure 5A) where the ignition voltage pulses undergo multiple polarity reversals.
Regarding claim 14, Peters teaches a welding device (Figure 1, 100) with a welding head (10) or torch, on which there is provided an electrode (20), wherein the electrode (20) is connected to a gas supply unit (60) for TIG or Tungsten Inert Gas welding and a power supply unit (80) by which a voltage can be applied in controlled fashion between the electrode (20) and a material surface of a workpiece (50), characterized in that wherein the power supply unit (80) is configured, for contactless striking of an arc (30) between the electrode (20) and the material surface of the work piece (50), to produce a first ignition voltage pulse with a first or second polarity and to maintain the arc (30) with the second polarity after having been struck and, wherein the power supply unit (80) is further configured, in the event of an ignition failure, to generate a sequence of ignition voltage pulses according to a sequence pattern (Figure 5A), wherein the sequence pattern (Figure 5A) comprises a number of ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (Ip) and a number of ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (In), and wherein an ignition pause is provided between ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (Ip) and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (In) because square waves (Figure 5A) are not totally ideal, so there is a short value of time between the pulses.
Regarding claim 15, Peters teaches an internal database in the electronics in the control unit (260) containing stored sequence patterns for different materials or other settings like current, voltage, power, wire feed speed, wire type and size, workpiece thickness, and workpiece type ([0018]) stored in the power supply (80) of the welding device (100).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Peters teaches an electronic internal database in the electronics of the control unit (260) and it is an inherent property of electronics that they are programmable. Therefore, using an input or output unit, one can program at least one stored sequence pattern, and at least partially synchronize the internal database with an external database by temporarily connecting the internal database to an external memory, network, or even the cloud.
Regarding claim 18, Peters teaches an internal database in the electronics of the control unit (260) containing stored sequence patterns for different materials or other settings like current, voltage, power, wire feed speed, wire type and size, workpiece thickness, and workpiece type ([0018]) stored in the power supply (80) of the welding device (100) and in order to input to the welding device (100) what the conditions are a user interface (82,84,86) is required and by looking at the user interface the required settings and therefore the currently selected sequence can be found.
Regarding claim 19, Peters teaches at least one parameter, the “pop out” condition, that evaluates a quality and/or an ignition behavior of the sequence pattern used can be determined, wherein the determined parameter, where applicable, is stored and/or can be displayed via a user interface or via an input and output unit. As the “pop out” condition is measured by the control unit (260), it is inherently stored as data in the control unit (260).
Regarding claim 20, Peters teaches a welding device that is configured to apply an adaptive algorithm (Figure 4) that automatically select and adapt a sequence pattern suitable for optimal striking based on the selected settings from a mode or process selector (82), a wave form switch (84), and other controls ([0018]).
Claims 1-5, 9, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanka (US Publication 2021/0053134).
Regarding claim 1, Hanka teaches a method for contactlessly striking an arc between an electrode (11) and material surface of a workpiece (10) for a welding process wherein a first ignition voltage pulse with a first or second polarity is generated between the electrode (11) and the material surface of the workpiece (10), wherein, after having been struck and, where applicable, after a polarity reversal, the arc is maintained with the second polarity or with an alternating polarity (Figure 2), wherein, in the event of an ignition failure or without the event of an ignition failure, after the first ignition voltage pulse, a sequence of ignition voltage pulses (Figure 2) is generated according to a sequence pattern (Figure 2) until and after successful striking of the arc, wherein the sequence pattern (Figure 2) comprises a number of ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (20 and 22) and a number of ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (19 and 23), and wherein an ignition pause is provided between ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (20 and 22) and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (19 and 23).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hanka teaches a PWM (4) to control the sequence pattern, when the user control is set to 100% ([0093]) the sequence pattern is an alternating sequence of an ignition voltage pulse with the first polarity followed by an ignition voltage pulse with the second polarity, or vice versa.
Regarding claim 4, Hanka teaches a period of time where after the arc is struck, the arc is maintained with that polarity, after which the polarity is reversed (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Hanka teaches the PWM (4) to set a sequence pattern and then even if the arc is extinguished, keeping to that set sequence pattern, so that the previously started sequence of ignition voltage pulses is continued in accordance with the sequence pattern ([0093]).
Regarding claim 9, Hanka teaches an AC welding process (Figure 2).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Hanka teaches an AC welding process using an arc welder which inherently requires striking of the arc repeatedly throughout the welding process and the striking of the arc before arc welding.
Regarding claim 14, Hanka teaches a welding device (Figure 1) for TIG or Tungsten Inert Gas welding ([0061]), which inherently requires a source of inert gas, with a welding head on which there is an electrode (11), where the electrode is connected to a supply unit (12 and 2) by which a voltage can be applied in a controlled fashion between the electrode (11) and the workpiece (10), wherein the power supply unit (12) is configured to provide welding current for contactless striking of an arc between the electrode (11) and the workpiece (10) to produce a first ignition voltage pulse with a first (positive) or second (negative) polarity (Figure 2) and to maintain the arc with a second polarity after having been struck and, where applicable, after a polarity reversal (Figure 2), wherein the supply unit (12 and 2) is further configured, in the event of an ignition failure and in the event of no ignition failure, after the first ignition voltage pulse until and after successful striking of the arc to generate a series of ignition voltage pulses (Figure 2) according to a sequence pattern (Figure 2), wherein the sequence pattern (Figure 2) comprises a number of ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (20 and 22) and a number of ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (19 and 23), and wherein an ignition pause (Figure 2) is provided between ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity (20 and 22) and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity (19 and 23).
Regarding claim 15, Hanka teaches a PWM (4) configured to produce at least three different ignition schedules ([0074]) or sequence patterns for different cases stored in the welding device (Figure 1) as there is nowhere else to store them.
Regarding claim 16, Hanka teaches that the PWM (4) may be part of a computer and it is an inherent property of computer that they are programmable. Therefore, using an input or output unit, one can program at least one stored sequence pattern, and at least partially synchronize the internal database with an external database by temporarily connecting the internal database to an external memory, network, or even the cloud.
Regarding claim 17, Hanka teaches that the PWM (4) can be programmed with algorithms ([0092]) or sequence patterns.
Regarding claim 18, Hanka teaches that the PWM (4) may be part of a computer and it is an inherent property of computer that they are programmable. Therefore, using an input or output unit, one can read data from the computer including what the current sequence pattern is.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 03/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. As the first ignition pulse of claim 1 is not the first ignition pulse of any given welding process The rejection of claim 12 under of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner never sets forth that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what an adaptive algorithm was, merely that it is unknown what the boundaries of the adaptive algorithm is as there was only an open-ended list of what the adaptive algorithm could be not a closed list of what the adaptive algorithm is. Further, the term “optionally” is never defined and us such it is unclear how that adjusts what the adaptive algorithm does or does not do and when that determination is made. Therefore claims 8 and 20 do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the adaptive algorithm.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the reference of Peters fails to teach an ignition waveform on page 11 and the last paragraph of page 12 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, it is noted that the third paragraph of applicant’s specification filed 02/10/2023, states “in the case of AC welding processes, ignition voltage pulses (zero-cross striking)are also generated when the polarity of the welding voltage changes during the welding process, i.e., with the zero-crossing, in order to maintain the arc, i.e., to prevent the arc from breaking, which also corresponds to an ignition process.” Therefore, the zero-crossing of AC welding is caused by ignition voltage pulses. This is expressly what is taught by Peters AC waveform (Figures 5A and 5B).
In response to the arguments that Peters, from the first full paragraph of page 12 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, and Hanka, from the first paragraph of page 13 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, do not teach any ignition pauses between ignition voltage pulses of the first polarity and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity as the ignition waveforms of both Peters and Hanka are sine-shaped waves. Examiner would like to point out that it is a property of sine waves that they cross through a neutral midpoint which is neither of the first polarity or the second polarity which is a short pause between the positive and negative half cycles or pulses of the sine-wave. Therefore, each reference teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation.
In response to the arguments that Peters, from the first full paragraph of page 12 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, and Hanka, from the first paragraph of page 13 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, do not teach waveforms having a shape like the signals of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., having a shape like the signals of the invention) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead the claim requires a waveform where a sequence of ignition voltage pulses is generated according to a sequence pattern until successful striking of the arc, wherein the sequence pattern comprises a number of ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity and a number of ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity, and wherein an ignition pause is provided between ignition voltage pulses with the first polarity and ignition voltage pulses with the second polarity which is broader then what is argued. Both Hanka and Peters teach what is claimed about the shape of the waveform.
In response to the arguments that Hanka’s PWM-signal is not the same signal that reaches the electrode, from the second paragraph of page 13 of applicant’s response on 03/03/2026, examiner never sets forth that Hanka’s PWM-signal was the same signal that reached the electrode or that Hanka’s PWM-signal was the AC weld voltage signal on the top section of Figure 2. Instead, the rejection under Hanka relied on the voltage of the weld voltage graph from the top of Figure 2 for the polarity of the pulses and the timing of the PWM output graph below for when those pulses occurred. Claims 1 and 14 do not require the signal to be the same for both at the PWM and at the electrode. Instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation of both claims 1 and 14 is that the ignition voltage pulse is the ignition voltage at the electrode.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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 F 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights