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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/16/2023, 4/19/2023, 9/18/2025 and 11/5/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phraseology that can be implied, i.e. the first sentence of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(c).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 2,3,12 and 16 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.
Claims 2 and 12 recites the limitation "the contact tip" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrical stick out" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the arcing tip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1,9,11,14,20,22,23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinney (US3089022).
With regards to claim 1, Kinney discloses an electrode assembly for submerged arc welding (SAW) (electric arc welding apparatus for submerged arc welding, col 1, lines 65-70), the electrode assembly comprising: a head portion comprising a contact nozzle (gooseneck 15 where wire 10 passes through, Fig. 1); and an extension portion removably and serially attached to the contact nozzle and disposed to be proximal to an arcing tip of a consumable electrode relative to the contact nozzle (jacket 31 removably and serially attached to gooseneck 15 and disposed to be proximal to an arcing tip of the wire 10, Fig. 1), the extension portion comprising: a ceramic sleeve configured to slidingly feed the consumable electrode therethrough (guide member 30 is made from ceramic and is configured for the wire 10 to go through, col 2, lines 5-8), and a pair of metallic sheaths covering opposing ends of the ceramic sleeve (electric contact member 16 and conductive jacket 31 covering opposing ends of guide member 30, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 9, Kinney discloses wherein the extension portion is mechanically coupled to the contact nozzle through one of the metallic sheaths distal to the arcing tip relative to the contact nozzle (jacket 31 is mechanically coupled to gooseneck 15 through contact member 16 distal to the tip of where wire 10 exits jacket 31, Fig. 1).
With regards claim 11, Kinney discloses an extension portion configured for a submerged arc welding electrode assembly (electric arc welding apparatus having a jacket 31 for submerged arc welding, col 1, lines 65-70), the extension portion comprising: a ceramic sleeve configured to surround a consumable electrode (guide member 30 made of ceramic and configured to surround the wire 10, Fig. 1), and a pair of metallic sheaths covering opposing ends of the ceramic sleeve, wherein the extension portion is configured to be arranged serially with a head portion of the submerged arc welding electrode assembly (electric contact member 16 and conductive jacket 31 covering opposing ends of guide member 30, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 14, Kinney discloses wherein the ceramic sleeve comprises a straight cylindrical portion (jacket 31 is cylindrical therefore guide member 30 is cylindrical, Fig. 1, 2) and wherein each of the metallic sheaths comprises a correspondingly straight cylindrical inner wall portion surrounding the straight cylindrical portion of the ceramic sleeve (jacket 31 is cylindrical therefore contact member 16 is cylindrical, Fig. 1,2).
With regards to claim 20, Kinney discloses wherein the metallic sheath formed at an end closer to a stick-out portion of the consumable electrode has an outer edge that is rounded (heat conductive jacket 31 formed at an end closer to a stick out portion of the wire 10 has an outer edge that is rounded, Fig. 2).
With regards to claims 22 and 26, Kinney discloses wherein the ceramic sleeve is formed of a material of alumina (the guide member 30 maybe aluminum oxide, col 2, lines 5-6).
With regards to claim 23, Kinney discloses an electrode assembly for submerged arc welding (SAW) (electric arc welding apparatus having a jacket 31 for submerged arc welding, col 1, lines 65-70), comprising: a head portion and an extension portion that are arranged serially to feed a consumable electrode therethrough such that, during SAW, the head portion is disposed to be distal to an arcing tip of the consumable electrode (shielding jacket 31 serially connected to gooseneck 15 that feeds wire 10 to workpiece 23, Fig. 1) and the extension portion is disposed to be proximal to the arcing tip of the consumable electrode (jacket 31 is disposed to be proximal to the end of the head, Fig. 1), wherein the head portion includes a contact tip configured to electrically contact the consumable electrode to deliver power thereto (electric contact member 16 connected to jacket 31, Fig.1), and wherein the extension portion comprises: a ceramic sleeve configured to sliding feed the consumable electrode therethrough after passing through the contact tip (guide member 30 is made from ceramic and is configured for the wire 10 to go through after passing through electric contact member 16, col 2, lines 5-8); and a pair of metallic sheaths covering opposing ends of the ceramic sleeve (electric contact member 16 and conductive jacket 31 covering opposing ends of guide member 30, Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 25, Kinney discloses wherein the extension portion is mechanically coupled to the contact tip through one of the metallic sheaths distal to the arcing tip relative to the contact tip (jacket 31 is mechanically coupled to gooseneck 15 through contact member 16 distal to the tip of where wire 10 exits jacket 31, Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,12,15,16,and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney as applied to claims 1,11 and 15 above, and further in view of Robbiani et al (DE4128516A1).
With regards to claims 2 and 12, Kinney does not disclose the electrode assembly configured such that, during SAW with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance, measured between the contact tip disposed at an end of the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode, and a diameter of the consumable electrode exceeds 30.
Robbiani et al teaches the electrode assembly configured such that, during SAW with the consumable electrode inserted therethrough, a ratio between an electrical stick-out distance, measured between the contact tip disposed at an end of the head portion and the arcing tip of the consumable electrode, and a diameter of the consumable electrode exceeds 30 (a welding torch having a nozzle tube between 50 and 300 mm and a wire of a diameter d of about 1.6 to 3.2 mm wherein the ratio would be between 31.25 to 93.75, paragraph 0006, paragraph 0018).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney and Robbiani et al before him or her, to modify the contact tip and wire of Kinney to include the stick out distance and wire diameter of Robbiani et al because the spatial relation between the stick out and diameter of the wire allows for minimizing oxide formation during welding.
With regards to claim 3, Robbiani et al teaches wherein the electrical stick-out distance exceeds 125 mm (a welding torch having a nozzle tube between 50 and 300 mm, paragraph 0006).
With regards to claim 15, Kinney et al does not disclose wherein the ceramic sleeve comprises a tapered portion formed at one or both ends thereof, and wherein each of the metallic sheaths comprises a correspondingly tapered cylindrical inner wall portion surrounding the tapered portion of the ceramic sleeve.
Robbiani et al teaches wherein the ceramic sleeve comprises a tapered portion formed at one or both ends thereof, and wherein each of the metallic sheaths comprises a correspondingly tapered cylindrical inner wall portion surrounding the tapered portion of the ceramic sleeve (ceramic tube 22 having at tapered end in connection with a coupling end 24 and a tapered end closer to the end of cored wire 26, Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney and Robbiani et al before him or her, to modify the ceramic sleeve of Kinney to include the tapered portion of Robbiani et al because the tapered end allows for a mechanically enhanced welding torch.
With regards to claim 16, Robbiani et al teaches wherein the extension portion comprises the tapered portion at the end closer to the arcing tip (ceramic tube 22 has a tapered portion at the end towards cored wire 26, Fig. 2), in which a width thereof decreases towards the arcing tip (triangle shape of tapered end of ceramic tube 22 decreases towards wire 26, Fig. 2), wherein the tapered portion is configured such that tangents of an exterior surface of the extension portion form a triangle (triangle shape of tapered end of ceramic tube 22 decreases towards wire 26, Fig. 2).
Kinney and Robbiani et al does not teach having an angle of apex that is less than 16 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the tapered ceramic sleeve as taught by Kinney and Robbiani et al since the applicant has not disclosed that the angle of apex that is less than 16 degrees solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the tapered ceramic sleeve as taught by Kinney and Robbiani et al.
With regards to claim 17, Robbiani et al teaches wherein the extension portion has a shape, length and a lateral dimension such that the extension portion is configured to not contact a sidewall of a groove (welding torch 12 has a ceramic tube 22 with a shape, length and lateral dimension configured to contact a sidewall of gap 28, Fig. 3).
Kinney and Robbiani et al does not teach a triangular groove having a depth exceeding 4 inches and having an angle of an apex that is less than 16 degrees while the tip of the consumable electrode contacts the apex. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the tapered ceramic sleeve as taught by Kinney and Robbiani et al since the applicant has not disclosed that a triangular groove having a depth exceeding 4 inches and having an angle of an apex that is less than 16 degrees while the tip of the consumable electrode contacts the apex.solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the tapered ceramic sleeve as taught by Kinney and Robbiani et al.
Claim(s) 4,6,8,13,14,18,19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinney as applied to claims 1,11 and 23 above, and further in view of Gordon et al (WO03039800A1).
With regards to claims 4,13 and 24, Kinney does not disclose wherein a gap between the ceramic sleeve and each of the metallic sheaths is filled with a sealant such that the ceramic sleeve and the metallic sheaths are immobilized with respect to each other.
Gordon et al teaches wherein a gap between the ceramic sleeve and each of the metallic sheaths is filled with a sealant such that the ceramic sleeve and the metallic sheaths are immobilized with respect to each other (braze or solder a conductive insert in the metal body of the tip and thereby ensure that any electrical resistance between the body of the tip and a conductive insert is very low, page 43, lines 12-16).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kinney and Gordon et al before him or her, to modify the extension of Kinney to include the braze as taught by Gordon et al because the spatial relation and braze allow for low resistance for current in a welding torch.
With regards to claim 6, Gordon et al teaches wherein the ceramic sleeve is brazed onto the metallic sheaths such that the sealant comprises a brazing metal (braze or solder a conductive insert in the metal body of the tip and thereby ensure that any electrical resistance between the body of the tip and a conductive insert is very low, page 43, lines 12-16).
With regards to claim 8, Kinney discloses wherein the metallic sheaths at the opposing ends are separated in a lengthwise direction of the ceramic sleeve by a separation distance (contact member 16 is separated from an end of heat conductive jacket 31 by rod guide 30, Fig. 1).
Kinney and Gordon et al does not teach thereby exposing the ceramic sleeve such that electrical shorting is substantially prevented between the metallic sheaths at an electrical bias exceeding 30V. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the metal body and tip as taught by Kinney and Gordon et al since the applicant has not disclosed that thereby exposing the ceramic sleeve such that electrical shorting is substantially prevented between the metallic sheaths at an electrical bias exceeding 30V solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the metal body and tip as taught by Kinney and Gordon et al.
With regards to claim 18, Gordon et al teaches wherein an inner cavity of the ceramic sleeve has one or both end portions that are flared to have a diameter greater than that of a middle portion of the inner cavity (ceramic insert 264e has an inlet 77 flared out to have a larger diameter than bore 252e, Fig. 14).
With regards to claim 19, Gordon et al teaches wherein an outer edge of one or both ends of the ceramic sleeve is rounded (ceramic insert 264e has an inlet 77 rounded to have a larger diameter than bore 252e, Fig. 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761