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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 5-7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-4 are examined as follow:
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018187664A (previously cited) herein set forth as JP87664A, in view of Dackson (US9102009B2 previously cited) herein set forth as Dackson, and further in view of JPH3118979A (previously cited) herein set forth as JPH18979A.
Regarding claim 1, JP87664A discloses a side nozzle comprising:
a head attachment (attachment mechanism #4A, fig.2) attached to a welding head (torch nozzle #22, fig.2); and
a gas blow nozzle (multiple nozzle parts #2 in fig.2) attached to a side of the head attachment (attachment mechanism #4A, fig.2) and configured to blow shielding gas (refer to “aftershield gas” cited in the abstract) to the weld position (refer to the position where the multiple nozzle parts #2 aiming direction in fig.2), wherein
the gas blow nozzle (multiple nozzle parts #2 in fig.2) includes
a main nozzle (refer to the nozzle parts #2 that is closest to attachment mechanism #4A in fig.2) that is disposed closer to the head attachment (attachment mechanism #4A, fig.2) and is supplied with the shielding gas (refer to “aftershield gas” cited in the abstract) by a first gas pipe (refer to gas hose #61 that is connected to the closest nozzle part #2 in fig.2), and
a sub-nozzle (refer to the other 2 nozzle parts #2 in fig.2) that is disposed so as to be adjacent to the main nozzle (refer to the nozzle parts #2 that is closest to attachment mechanism #4A in fig.2) and farther away from the head attachment (attachment mechanism #4A, fig.2) than the main nozzle (refer to the nozzle parts #2 that is closest to attachment mechanism #4A in fig.2) and is supplied with the shielding gas (refer to “aftershield gas” cited in the abstract) by a second gas pipe (refer to gas hose #61 that is connected to the other nozzle part #2 in fig.2), and
the sub-nozzle (refer to the other 2 nozzle parts #2 in fig.2) is removable (refer to NPL JP2018187664A translated, page 4 line 36 -50 cited:” …The slide support portion 10 includes a plurality of vertical rods 10a and horizontal rods 10b formed in a long cylindrical shape using, for example, a metal such as stainless steel, a non-ferrous metal, or ceramics.
The plurality of vertical rods 10a are arranged to extend in the vertical direction, and are arranged side by side in the horizontal direction so as to correspond to the plurality of holding portions 8 that hold the nozzle portions 2, respectively. A ring member Ba (holding portion 8) is rotatably attached to the lower end side of each vertical rod 10a via a rotation shaft 9a.
The horizontal rod 10b extends in the horizontal direction and supports a plurality of vertical rods 10b so as to be slidable in the vertical direction via a joint portion 10c.
Further, the vertical rod 10b can be fixed to the horizontal rod 10b by a fastening screw (not shown) provided in the joint portion 10c.
In the support mechanism 3A, it is possible to change (adjust) the direction of the aftershield gas discharged from the nozzle portion 2 by rotating the ring member Ba (holding portion 8) around the rotation shaft 9a. is there.
Further, in the support mechanism 3A, it is possible to change (adjust) the interval between the nozzle portion 2 and the workpieces S1 and S2 by sliding the plurality of vertical rods 1 Ob in the vertical direction.
Further, in the support mechanism 3A, it is possible to change (adjust) the interval between the adjacent nozzle portions 2 by sliding the vertical rod 1 0a together with the joint portion 1 0c in the extending direction of the horizontal rod 1 Ob.
The attachment mechanism 4A has an attachment ring 11 formed in a cylindrical shape as a whole using, for example, a metal such as stainless steel, a non-ferrous metal, or ceramics. The base end side of the horizontal rod 1 Ob is attached by screwing or the like while being cantilevered by the attachment ring 11.…”, Examiner note: the citation clearly describing the structure of “support portion #10” in the figure is adjustable and removable for each “nozzle part #2” from each other, furthermore fig. 5 show the third nozzle is removed) from the main nozzle (refer to the nozzle parts #2 that is closest to attachment mechanism #4A in fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
513
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
375
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
JP87664A does not disclose a laser welding machine and including an opening through which a laser beam emitted from the welding head for irradiation to a weld position pass; the main nozzle is made of copper; and the sub-nozzle is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
In the similar field of shielding gas welding, Dackson discloses a laser welding machine (laser machine #10, fig.1) and including an opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) through which a laser beam (laser beam #24, fig.1) emitted from the welding head (focus head #14, fig.1) for irradiation to a weld position passes (focus point #18, fig.1)
PNG
media_image3.png
469
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modified JP87664A’s arc welding machine with a laser welding machine and including an opening through which a laser beam emitted from the welding head for irradiation to a weld position passes as taught by Dackson, in order to increase the utilization and marketability of the JP87664A’s aftershield gas jig system, and also taking advantages of Dackson’s keyhole welding machine that have better automation control and manipulation of the welding than arc welding (refer to Col 1, line 18-21 cited: “…The laser is a device that generates a nearly collimated beam of light energy. When its beam is directed, manipulated and focused with respect to a workpiece, it has a consistency that makes it ideally suited for automated processing …”).
Dackson does not specifically disclose the main nozzle is made of copper; and the sub-nozzle is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
In the field of Gas Nozzle for shielding gas welding, JPH18979A discloses a gas nozzle made of copper aluminum alloy (refer to abstract cited: “…Gas nozzle comprises a Cu-Al alloy layer contg. 9-26 wt.% Al on the surface of the nozzle…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP87664’s main nozzle and sub-nozzle with made of copper aluminum alloy, as taught by JPH18979A, in order to increase the durability of the nozzles and also make the nozzles free from adhesion of sputtering and heat deformation too, such that would increase the operation life span of the invention (Examiner note: Since Multiple nozzles is already disclosed in the primary prior art, and JPH18979A teaches nozzle make with copper-aluminum alloy; therefore JP87664A in view of JPH18979A modification of the use of copper aluminum alloys for all the gas nozzles, such that would teaches the limitation as claimed.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018187664A (previously cited) herein set forth as JP87664A, in view of Dackson (US9102009B2 previously cited) herein set forth as Dackson, further in view of JPH3118979A (previously cited) herein set forth as JPH18979A, further in view of Haag (US11311968B2 previously cited) fig.14 herein set forth as Haagfig14, and further in view of another embodiment of Haag fig.11 herein set forth as Haagfig11.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of JP87664A, Dackson and JPH18979A discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, JP87664A further discloses wherein the main nozzle (refer to the nozzle parts #2 that is closest to attachment mechanism #4A in fig.2) includes a main conduit (holding portion #8, fig.2) including a through hole (refer to the hole of the ring member #8a in fig.2) formed in a metal columnar body (ring member #8a in fig.2).
JP87664A or Dackson or JP18979A does not explicitly disclose wherein the sub-nozzle includes first and second sub-conduits including two through holes formed in a metal plate-shaped body, each of the main conduit and the first and second sub-conduits includes a straight portion formed closer to a first end at which the shielding gas is injected, an inclined straight portion formed closer to a second end from which the shielding gas is blown, the inclined straight portion being inclined to approach the weld position, and a bend that is a boundary between the straight portion and the inclined straight portion at which a traveling direction of the shielding gas is bent, the bend is formed close to the first end relative to a center between the first end and the second end, and no bend is formed in the inclined straight portion.
In the field of shielding gas nozzle for welding, Haag discloses a shielding gas nozzle (gas nozzle #22, fig.14) that comprise a straight portion (refer to “straight portion” annotated in fig.14) formed closer to a first end (refer to “first end” annotated in fig.14) at which the shielding gas is injected, an inclined straight portion (refer to “inclined portion” annotated in fig.14) formed closer to a second end (refer to “second end” annotated in fig,14) from which the shielding gas is blown, the inclined straight portion (refer to “inclined portion” annotated in fig.14) being inclined to approach the weld position, and a bend (refer to “bend” annotated in fig.14) that is a boundary between the straight portion (refer to “straight portion” annotated in fig.14) and the inclined straight portion (refer to “inclined portion” annotated in fig.14) at which a traveling direction of the shielding gas is bent, the bend (refer to “bend” annotated in fig.14) is formed close to the first end (refer to “first end” annotated in fig.14) relative to a center (refer to “center” annotated in fig.14) between the first end (refer to “first end” annotated in fig.14) and the second end (refer to “second end” annotated in fig.14), and no bend is formed in the inclined straight portion (refer to “inclined portion” annotated in fig.14).
PNG
media_image4.png
375
669
media_image4.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 have substitute all three of JP87664A’s nozzles with Haagfig14’s nozzle, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of ejection of shielding gas, it order to provide a lower profile nozzle that can reduce the nozzle height and also change direction of the shielding gas too.
Haagfig14 does not explicitly disclose wherein the sub-nozzle includes first and second sub-conduits including two through holes formed in a metal plate-shaped body.
In the similar field shielding gas welding, Haagfig11 discloses wherein the sub-nozzle (gas nozzle #22, fig.11) includes first and second sub-conduits (refer to “first sub” and “second sub” annotated in fig.11) including two through holes (refer as the through hole of each “first and second subs” in fig.11) formed in a metal plate-shaped body (refer to “one metal body” annotated in fig.11) (refer to fig.11, Examiner note: fig.11 show multiple nozzle can combine into one).
PNG
media_image5.png
611
478
media_image5.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 have modified the first and second sub-conduit of Modified JP87664A’s nozzles to be in one metal body, as taught by Haagfig.11, in order to provide multiple nozzles in one single nozzle body, such that the shielding gas nozzles would have reduced complexity of nozzle construction and also provide easier adjustment and control of the nozzles.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018187664A (previously cited) herein set forth as JP87664A, in view of Dackson (US9102009B2 previously cited) herein set forth as Dackson, further in view of JPH3118979A (previously cited) herein set forth as JPH18979A, further in view of Haag (US11311968B2 previously cited) fig.14 herein set forth as Haagfig14, further in view of another embodiment of Haag fig.11 herein set forth as Haagfig11, and further in view of Offer et al (US5981897 previously cited) herein set forth as Offer.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of JP87664A, Dackson, JPH18979A and Haag discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, JP87664A, Dackson, JPH18979A or Haag does not disclose wherein each of the straight portions of the main conduit and the first and second sub-conduits is mounted with a rectifying member made of a porous metal material and configured to rectify the shielding gas.
In the field of shielding gas nozzle, Offer discloses wherein each of the straight portions of the main conduit and the first and second sub-conduits is mounted with a rectifying member made of a porous metal material and configured to rectify the shielding gas (refer to abstract cited: “…To achieve a laminar flow, a gas diffusing structure is incorporated in each gas distribution tube. The gas diffusing structures include the following: a compression spring attached to the end of the gas distribution tube and having an opening which is covered by a porous or non-porous cover; a fine-mesh screen which is wrapped around the distal end of the gas distribution tube and having an opening which is closed by a porous closure; a metal wire wool or braided rope which is stuffed inside the tube; or a distal section of the tube is made from porous material and has an opening covered by a porous end cover …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified JP87664A’s nozzles such that each of the straight portions of the main conduit and the first and second sub-conduits is mounted with a rectifying member made of a porous metal material and configured to rectify the shielding gas, as taught by Offer, in order to have a better flow pattern of shielding gas, and to reduce wastage of shielding gas during operation of the welding system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicants argue: “…JPH18979A does not disclose a gas blow nozzle made of copper, nor does it disclose a nozzle made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy. Therefore, even if JP87664A, Dackson, and JPH18979A are combined, amended independent claim 1 is not obvious…”, Remark Page 3.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that that limitation cited in the rejected claim does not contain limitation that implied that the main nozzle is made of copper only, or the sub-nozzle is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy only. Since prior art JPH18979A teaches a nozzle made of copper aluminum alloy, which teaches both nozzle made of copper and nozzle made of aluminum alloy, therefore by simply modifying JP87664A’s main nozzle and sub-nozzle to make of copper aluminum alloy, such modification would teaches the cited limitation of “…wherein the main nozzle is made of copper, and the sub-nozzle is made of aluminum or an aluminum alloy …”, furthermore, the references are related as the same technical field of shielding gas nozzle for welding, therefore it would have been obvious to combine their teachings, and doing so would increase the durability of the nozzles, making the nozzles free from adhesion of sputtering and heat deformation too, such that would increase the operation life span of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN101088693A discloses a nozzle for shielding gas welding made of copper-silver alloy.
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 July 16th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights