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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 17 July 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 8, 17, 18, and 21 are amended. Claim 22 is cancelled and no claims are added. Thus claims 1-21 are pending in this application. As a reference was added to the grounds of rejection, this is a Non-Final Office Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10 of 12, filed 17 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the claims are rejected over new grounds.
Drawings
The amended drawing filed 17 July 2026 is Entered and the objections are withdrawn.
Specification
The Amended specification filed 17 July 2026 is entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Thomas (U.S. Patent 2006/ 0289493).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas discloses a method of performing a repeatable welding process, the method comprising repeatably controlling an induction welding power supply of an induction welding apparatus to output power to the induction welding coil based on the stored information about the power output to the induction welding coil from a method of developing an induction welding process (Thomas, ¶0036, continuously controls power to provide desired output)., the method comprising:
using a weld controller (Thomas, control panel 354, ¶0036, temperature controller 80 works with power source controller 110) to control an induction welding power supply of an induction welding apparatus to power an induction welding coil to inductively heat a joint between work pieces to a predefined set point temperature based on feedback from one or more sacrificial temperature sensors connected to one or more temperature sensor connectors integrated into the induction welding apparatus (Thomas, Fig. 4, ¶28-33, control panel 54 used to set program; plurality of sacrificial connectors 50, transmitted to the controller via 52, sacrificial sensors on fig. 4 for monitoring and feedback to maintain setpoint, ¶0039); and
storing (¶33, memory) information about the power output to the induction welding coil during the preceding step.
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.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitation is not disclosed by the reference]
Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Patent 2006/ 0289493) in view of DiChiara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/ 0039327).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses an induction welding apparatus (10) comprising:
an apparatus enclosure (Thomas, fig. 1, enclosed structure of 54+24+36);
an induction welding power supply (Thomas, 24), power supplied to the induction coil) received in the apparatus enclosure;
a chiller (36, fig. 1) received in the apparatus enclosure and fluidly connected to the induction welding power supply;
an induction welding coil (27) operatively connected to the induction welding power supply;
a cable (26) operatively connecting the induction welding coil to the induction welding power supply such
an HMI device (54, Fig. 1 configured to receive user input selecting a weld control routine (¶0029 “enables a user to program” … “a number of operating programs having varied heating profiles are envisaged”); and
a weld controller configured to control the induction welding apparatus to make an induction weld based on a user input selecting a weld control routine (¶0029 “enables a user to program” … “a number of operating programs having varied heating profiles are envisaged”, ¶0032,34, “operable to receive programming instructions”).
Thomas does not disclose “such that the induction welding coil is movable in relation to the apparatus enclosure” (it seems to be static on the workpiece). However, in his induction heater, DiChiara teaches “such that the induction welding coil is movable in relation to the apparatus enclosure” (DiChiara, ¶0006, “The system includes an induction coil disposed above the first TPC and moveable relative to a weld interface area). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas with the teachings of DiChiara to have the induction coil be able to move relatively in relation to the enclosure, in order to have a more versatile induction heater, being able to heat and weld externally along a line, rather than in just a very specific area (as in Thomas, heating the pipe) in order to apply heat more efficiently and have the welder be movable to apply the coil head in more ways.
Regarding claim 2, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus wherein the HMI device is mounted on the apparatus enclosure (Thomas, fig. 1) .
Regarding claim 3, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is received in the apparatus enclosure (fig. 1, the weld controller is behind the interface and is thus in the enclosure).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus comprising a single power input configured to connect the induction welding power supply, the chiller, the HMI device, and the weld controller to main power (in combination, this would be the power to the enclosure in Thomas).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to control weld tooling (in combination, the welding tool of Thomas in view of DiChiara).
.
Regarding claim 6, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 5 , as above, but does not further teach an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to control a variable force press of the weld tooling to press first and second work pieces toward one another at a force defined in a weld control routine selected by user input to the HMI device. However, the program of the controller does not directly affect the structure of “the induction welding apparatus” that is being claimed. However, DiChiara does teach that the mount may be used fo9r pressing and engaging the components (DiChiara, ¶0048, put pressure for welding), and thus, having such instructions being able to be inputted would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as it would increase the versatility of the invention of Thomas in view of DiChiara (at least Thomas, ¶0029, programmed to perform a variety of operations”) while the structure of Thomas in view of DiChiara reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 5 , as above, but does not further teach, in the combination thus far, an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to control a robot of the welding tool to move the induction welding coil lengthwise along a weld joint. However, DiChiara further teaches that the induction welding coil is configured at the end effector of a robot, and the robot may be controlled to move (DiChiara, ¶0048, “robotic arm 24”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara with a further teaching of DiChiara, to have the induction coil moved by a robot lengthwise along a weld joint, in order to affect versatile welding in a conventional way.
Regarding claim 8, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 7 , as above, but does not further teach, in the combination thus far, an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to control the robot to move the induction welding coil lengthwise along the weld joint at a speed defined in a weld control routine selected by a user input to the HMI device. However, DiChiara does further teach that, in controlling his welder, that the speed may be controlled and adjusted (DiChiara, ¶0077). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara with a further teaching of DiChiara to control the welding speed and have that be within the program programmed into the interface as previously taught, in order to control the welding in a conventional and efficient way.
Regarding claim 9, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 7 , as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to control the robot to move the induction welding coil lengthwise along the weld joint at a distance from the weld joint defined in a weld control routine selected by a user input to the HMI device (in combination, moving the end effector on the robot according to DiChiara, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 7 , as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus comprising a plurality of sacrificial temperature sensor connectors configured to connect individual sacrificial temperature sensors to the weld controller such that the sacrificial temperature sensor connectors pass temperature signals from the sacrificial temperature sensors to the weld controller (Thomas, Fig. 4, ¶28, plurality of sacrificial sensors 50, transmitted to the controller via 52, sacrificial sensors on fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus comprising one or more reusable temperature sensor connectors configured to connect one or more reusable temperature sensors to the weld controller such that the reusable temperature sensor connectors pass temperature signals from the reusable temperature sensors to the weld controller (Thomas, Fig. 4, ¶28, reusable temperature sensor connectors 50, transmitted to the controller via 52, reusable sensors on Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an induction welding apparatus further comprising a memory (Thomas, ¶0033, “memory”) configured to store information about power outputted by the induction welding apparatus during each induction weld made by the induction welding apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 15, as above, but does not explicitly teach, in this combination, an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to selectively control the induction welding apparatus to make an induction weld based on the stored information to output power from the induction welding apparatus in accordance with the power outputted by the induction welding apparatus during a previous induction weld. However, given all the limitations of claim 15, and the controlling of the welder (Thomas, ¶¶0033, 0034) that there is a memory of stored calibrations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara and to have the welding being controlled based on stored information of previous induction welds, in order to more efficiently weld future welds according to previously useful information and so that the device welds properly and efficiently.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses an induction welding system comprising: an induction welding apparatus comprising: an induction welding power supply (Thomas, 24); an induction welding coil (26 becomes the coil around 22) configured to be powered by the induction welding power supply; and a weld controller configured to control the induction welding power supply to power the induction welding coil to repeatably execute weld routines(¶0029-30); conduct induction welds by controlling the induction welding power supply to power the induction welding coil and controlling the induction welding tooling to at least one of press together work pieces to be welded and move the induction welding coil lengthwise along a weld joint between work pieces to be welded. However, DiChiara teaches an “induction welding tooling comprising at least one of (i) a variable force press configured to press together work pieces to be welded and (ii) an actuator for moving the induction welding coil lengthwise along a weld joint between work pieces to be welded (DiChiara, ¶81, fig. 1); wherein the weld controller is configured to repeatably conduct induction welds by controlling the induction welding power supply to power the induction welding coil and controlling the induction welding tooling to at least one of press together work pieces to be welded and move the induction welding coil lengthwise along a weld joint between work pieces to be welded (¶¶0061). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas with the teachings of DiChiara, in order to weld workpieces being powered from a welding power source and interface, in order to have a more versatile induction heater, being able to heat and weld externally along a line, rather than in just a very specific area (as in Thomas, heating the pipe) in order to apply heat more efficiently and have the welder be movable to apply the coil head in more ways.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Patent 2006/ 0289493) in view of DiChiara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/ 0039327) and further in view of Zwayer (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0189020).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 7 , as above, but does not further teach an induction welding apparatus further comprising a dock on the enclosure on which the induction welding coil is dockable. However, for his removable welder, Zwayer teaches a dock (Zwayer, at least abstract). And the advantage would be having a place to dock the welding coil and end effector when not in use would be useful to store it efficiently, and so as to prevent damage to the welding coil/head. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara with the further teachings of Zwayer, which teaches that the welding head with the coil is dockable, in order to prevent damage to the welding coil/head and protect it protect it from the environment (Zwayer, ¶0039).
Claims 12 and14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (U.S. Patent 2006/ 0289493) in view of DiChiara (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/ 0039327) and further in view of Bickel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2001/ 0025847).
Regarding claim 12, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 11 , as above, but does not further teach, in the combination thus far, an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to execute PID control based on the temperature signals to adjust the power supplied from the induction welding power supply to the induction welding coil to achieve a predefined set point temperature defined by a weld control routine selected by a user input to the HMI device. Thomas does teach using a temperature sensor to find a setpoint and the user may program a program (Thomas, ¶¶0029, 0040). However, Bickel teaches using PID and temperature sensors to control a welding head to a setpoint (Bickel, ¶0029). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara with the teachings of Bickel, to add the claimed controlling method, in order to control the welder in a conventional way, achieving the precise desired temperature and heating, in a conventional way without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Thomas in view of DiChiara teaches all the limitations of claim 13 , as above, but does not further teach, in the combination thus far, an induction welding apparatus wherein the weld controller is configured to execute PID control based on the temperature signals to adjust the power supplied from the induction welding power supply to the induction welding coil to achieve a predefined set point temperature defined by a weld control routine selected by a user input to the HMI device. Thomas does teach using a temperature sensor to find a setpoint and the user may program a program (Thomas, ¶¶0029, 0040). However, Bickel teaches using PID and temperature sensors to control a welding head to a setpoint (Bickel, ¶0029). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas in view of DiChiara with the teachings of Bickel, to add the claimed controlling method, in order to control the welder in a conventional way, achieving the precise desired temperature and heating, in a conventional way without unexpected results.
Claims 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Thomas(U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/ 0289493) in view of Blum (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0018488).
Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses an induction welding apparatus (¶0025) for welding work pieces together at a weld joint, the induction welding apparatus comprising:
an apparatus enclosure (fig. 1, structure including housing containing 54+24+36);
an induction welding power supply received in the apparatus enclosure (24);
an induction welding coil configured to be powered by the induction welding power supply (cable 26 around 22 makes heating coil) ;
a plurality of temperature sensor connectors on the apparatus enclosure (fig. 4, ¶28, elements 50), each temperature sensor connector being configured to connect to a sacrificial temperature sensor that may be placed at a joint between work pieces while the work pieces are being welded together to output a temperature signal representative of temperature of the joint during welding (fig. 4, can see the temperature sensors, where they are placed does not directly affect this apparatus, and thus having the connectors connected to these sensors anticipates the claim); and
a weld controller (54) connected to the plurality of temperature sensor connectors and configured to control the induction welding power supply to execute a weld control routine based on one or more temperature signals from one or more sacrificial temperature sensors connected to the temperature sensor connectors (¶¶0028, 0029, 30),
Thomas does not disclose wherein the weld controller is a closed loop controller configured to receive real-time temperature signals from the one or more sacrificial temperature sensors during welding, and to dynamically adjust the power output of the induction welding power supply using PID control logic to track predefined temperature-versus-time parameters at the weld joint.
However, in his method for controlling an induction heater, Blum teaches wherein the weld controller is a closed loop controller configured to receive real-time temperature signals from the one or more sacrificial temperature sensors during welding, and to dynamically adjust the power output of the induction welding power supply using PID control logic to track predefined temperature-versus-time parameters at the weld joint (¶0047, “adjusting the heating level may include supplying a variable power level to the first heating element 16A based on the measured temperature, e.g., using a closed control loop such as a PI or PID control”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Thomas with the teachings of Blum, to control the induction heating using PID logic, in order to control the temperature of the heating coil in a conventional way, and to deliver appropriate power according to the desired temperature, so as not to overheat the device and to use the optimal amount of power to be more efficient with the heating.
Regarding claim 18, Thomas in view of Blum teaches an induction welding apparatus for welding work pieces together at a weld joint, the induction welding apparatus comprising: an induction welding power supply (Thomas, 24); an induction welding coil (Thomas, 26 becomes welding coil around 22) configured to be powered by the induction welding power supply; a weld controller (54) configured to control the induction welding power supply to power the induction welding coil to repeatably execute weld routines wherein the weld controller is configured to connect to one or more sacrificial temperature sensors that may be disposed at the joint while the work pieces are being welded together to output a temperature signal representative of temperature of the joint during welding (Thomas, ¶¶28, 29,30, programs entered via 54, and gets temperature); and
a feedback circuit providing information about the power output from the induction welding power supply during execution of weld routine (¶¶0036, feedback);
wherein the weld controller is configured to selectively control weld routines based on feedback from one or more sacrificial temperature sensors (Thomas, ¶32, temperature sensors 50 to 81) during a first weld routine and from the feedback circuit (Thomas, fig. 4, ¶0028-32, using circuit 80 and processor 82) during a second weld routine (getting the information from the sensor and then processing the information through the feedback circuit may be considered different “routines”).
Regarding claim 19, Thomas in view of Blum teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, and further discloses an induction welding apparatus comprising a memory configured to store the feedback during each weld routine (Thomas, ¶0033, “memory”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights