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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pp. 5 of the response the applicant argues that Tartaglia does not disclose “a positive pressure source configured to direct a positive pressure airflow into the ambient environment along at least a portion of a periphery of the downdraft table and not toward the work surface” [see pp. 5 of the response]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Tartaglia discloses a downdraft table [reference character 20] comprising: a work surface [reference character 21]; and a suction source [reference character 23] configured to create a negative pressure through a second surface [reference character 22] adjacent to the work surface; and a positive pressure source [reference character 30] configured to direct a positive pressure airflow into the ambient environment along at least a portion of a periphery of the downdraft table and not toward the work surface [the air is ingested through the air recovery grid located around the periphery of the work surface and the downdraft table], wherein the downdraft table is configured to draw air in from the ambient environment [note that the positive pressure source expels an air curtain into the ambient environment and the negative pressure source ingests the air from the ambient environment]. For these reasons the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-5, 8-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mate et. al (US 10,137,485 B2) in view of Tartaglia et. al (US 2013/0084788 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Mate discloses a welding system, comprising: a downdraft table [reference character 110] comprising: a work surface [107A and 107B]; and a suction source [reference character 201] configured to create a negative pressure through at least one of the work surface or a second surface [reference character 206] adjacent to the work surface; and a positive pressure source [reference character 260].
Mate does not disclose that the positive pressure source is configured to direct a positive pressure airflow into the ambient environment along at least a portion of a periphery of the downdraft table and not toward the work surface, wherein the downdraft table is configured to draw air in from the ambient environment.
Tartaglia discloses a downdraft table [reference character 20] comprising: a work surface [reference character 21]; and a suction source [reference character 23] configured to create a negative pressure through at a second surface [reference character 22] adjacent to the work surface; and a positive pressure source [reference character 30] configured to direct a positive pressure airflow into the ambient environment along at least a portion of a periphery of the downdraft table and not toward the work surface [the air is ingested through the air recovery grid located around the periphery of the work surface and the downdraft table, see paragraph 0034], wherein the downdraft table is configured to draw air in from the ambient environment [note that the positive pressure source expels an air curtain into the ambient environment and the negative pressure source ingests the air from the ambient environment].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mate by configuring the positive pressure source so that airflow is directed along at least a periphery of the downdraft table, as taught by Tartaglia, in order to completely prevent the ingress of contaminant and the egress of fumes from the downdraft table.
With respect to claim 2 Mate disclose that the work surface comprises a plurality of apertures, and the downdraft table is configured to direct fumes generated adjacent the work surface through the work surface to the suction source via the apertures [see reference characters 103A/B and column 7 lines 12-13].
With respect to claim 3 Mate discloses one or more fixtures [reference character 211] configured to be mounted or attached to the work surface via the apertures, the fixtures configured to hold a workpiece in place on the work surface.
With respect to claim 4 Mate discloses that the positive pressure source comprises a manifold [see Figs. 7 and 10A] configured to create at least one of an air knife or an air curtain positioned to block dispersion of fumes generated adjacent the work surface in at least one direction away from the downdraft table [column 14 lines 39-43].
With respect to claim 5 Mate discloses that the manifold is configured to create two or more air curtains or air curtains on two more sides of the downdraft table [see Fig. 10A].
With respect to claim 8 Mate discloses a robotic manipulator [reference character 205] coupled to the downdraft table and configured to manipulate a welding torch [column 3 lines 22-52].
With respect to claim 9 Mate implicitly discloses a welding-type power supply configured to supply welding-type power to the welding torch. Specifically, Mate discloses a “…plasma cutter, laser welder or cutter…” [column 3 lines 17-18], a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the inventio would recognize that plasma, cutters, and laser welder or cutters would be inclusive of a suitable power supply.
With respect to claim 10 Mate discloses a robotic controller [reference character 215] configured to control the robotic manipulator and the welding-type power supply to perform a robotic welding procedure on a workpiece positioned on the downdraft table.
With respect to claim 12 Mate discloses that the positive pressure source is configured to entrain fumes generated adjacent the work surface between the positive pressure airflow and the work surface such that the fumes are drawn into the suction source [column 14 lines 39-43].
With respect to claim 13 Mate discloses that the second surface [reference character 206] comprises a lateral surface [interpreted as lateral relative to the work surface, see Fig. 1], and the downdraft table is configured to direct fumes generated adjacent the work surface through the lateral surface to the suction source [see flow of fumes F in Fig. 10A].
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mate et. al (US 10,137,485 B2) in view of Tartaglia et. al (US 2013/0084788 A1), and further in view of Hammers et. al (US 2015/0004895 A1).
With respect to claim 6 Mate does discloses that the suction source is configured to draw air and fume via the at least one of the work surface [via duct 103] and filter the fume from the air [via reference character 104].
Mate does not disclose expelling filtered air via the manifold.
Hammers discloses a welding fume extraction system that includes a negative pressure system [via reference character 34], a positive pressure system [via reference character 32] where the drawn air is filtered [see reference character 38] and the filtered air is expelled to the positive pressure system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mate by connecting the exhaust from the filtration unit to the manifold supplying the air positive pressure system, as taught by Hammers, in order to eliminate the need for a separate positive pressure supply source.
With respect to claim 11 Mate does not disclose that the robotic controller is configured to control the suction source.
Hammers discloses a welding fume extraction system where a single remote interface [reference character 30] controls both the suction source [reference character 24] and the welding system [reference character 62].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mate by controlling both the suction source and welding system with a single controller, as taught by Hammers, in order to eliminate the need for separate controllers for both the robot and the suction source.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mate et. al (US 10,137,485 B2) in view of Tartaglia et. al (US 2013/0084788 A1), in view of Kikuchi e.t al (US 6,620,038 B1).
With respect to claim 7 Mate discloses that the positive pressure source is positioned above the downdraft table [see Fig. 7].
Mate does not disclose that the positive pressure source is configured to create the positive pressure airflow in a cone shape around the periphery of the work surface.
Kikuchi discloses a welding fume extraction system that includes a conical swirl positive pressure system [see reference character 4, F1, and 30a] such that “…the blowoff swirl airflow F1 that is spiral and stable forms air curtain flow that reliably encircles air in the specified local region so as to prevent the air from diffusing into the surroundings” [column 3 lines 28-31].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Mate by forming the air curtain as a swirling cone, as taught by Kikuchi, so that “…the blowoff swirl airflow F1 that is spiral and stable forms air curtain flow that reliably encircles air in the specified local region so as to prevent the air from diffusing into the surroundings” [column 3 lines 28-31 of Kikuchi].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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 B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762