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 .
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, 13-15, 18-20, and 23 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.
In claim 2, it is unclear how the tube can comprise a cap when claim 1 limits/closes the contents of the sealed area with “consisting of” language to a tube and a metal disk. For purposes of examination the broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied.
In claim 13, it is unclear how the outer packaging can comprise a plurality of sealed areas when claim 1 limits/closes the contents of the seal area with “consisting of” language to a tube and a metal disk.
In claim 18, it is unclear how the seal areas can comprise an igniting device when claim 1 limits/closes the contents of the sealed area with “consisting of” language to a tube and a metal disk.
In claim 19, it is unclear how a cap can be removed from a tube when claim 19 limits/closes the contents of the seal area with “consisting of” language to a tube and a metal disk.
In claim 20, it is unclear how the outer packaging can comprise a plurality of sealed areas when claim 19 limits/closes the contents of the sealed area with “consisting of” language to a tube and a metal disk.
In claim 23, it is unclear how the plurality of consumable welding items can consist of a tube when the tube is only used for containing the exothermic reaction weld metal and is not actually consumed during the exothermic reaction welding process.
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) 1-2, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermoweld Charges from https://www.anodeengineering.com/product/thermoweld-charges/ (hereafter Thermoweld).
With respect to claim 1, Thermoweld teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (cartridge) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a metal disk (metal discs); and an outer packaging (moisture resistant box) having a sealed (special shrink wrap plastic) area that comprises the tube and the metal disk (figure; description; and product data sheet EXO 13 001 THERMOWELD CHARGES REV01.PDF).
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1298
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thermoweld does not explicitly teach the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk. However, in view of the teachings of Thermoweld it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube and the metal disk in a sealed package in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit. Furthermore, the claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube and the metal disk into a sealed packaging for protection and/or organization when only those two components are further required to complete an exothermic weld.
With respect to claim 2, Thermoweld teaches wherein the tube comprises a cap on the tube so as to contain the weld metal in the tube (figure). Also note that the tube/vial of Thermoweld must intrinsically have a cap to prevent the weld metal from spilling.
With respect to claim 7, Thermoweld teaches the outer package is impermeable to moisture (broadest reasonable interpretation) (description of moisture-resistant; and product data sheet EXO 13 001 THERMOWELD CHARGES REV01.PDF).
With respect to claim 12, Thermoweld teaches product information on the outer packaging (figure of the datasheet).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over https://shopalltec.com/exothermic-welding/weld-metal/ newly cited by the applicant in the Appendix 2 received on 5/13/25) (hereafter Shopalltec)
With respect to claim 1, Shopalltec teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (vial) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a metal disk (metal disc); and an outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) having a sealed area that comprises the tube and the metal disk (figures; and description of foil weld metal pack).
PNG
media_image3.png
956
1704
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
970
1556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shopalltec does not explicitly teach the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk. However, in view of the teachings of Shopalltec, it is the examiner’s position that at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to only include a metal disk along with an individual vial containing an exothermic reaction weld metal in the foil weld metal pack (outer packaging) described by Shopallect in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the vial containing an exothermic reaction weld metal and the metal disk into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those two components are required to complete an exothermic weld. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) in Shopalltec in this configuration in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
With respect to claim 2, Shopalltec teaches whereon the tube comprises a cap on the tube so as to contain the weld metal in the tube (figure). Also note that the tube/vial of Shopalltec must intrinsically have a cap to prevent the weld metal from spilling.
With respect to claim 4, Shopalltec teaches wherein the metal disk is loose (broadest reasonable interpretation) within the outer packaging (foil weld metal pack).
With respect to claim 12, Shopalltec teaches product information on the outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) (figures).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terraweld (https://shopalltec.com/exothermic-weld-metal/)
With respect to claim 1, Terraweld teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (vial) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a metal disk (metal disc); and an outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) having a sealed area that comprises the tube and the metal disk (figures).
PNG
media_image5.png
960
1706
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
960
1706
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
948
1702
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Terraweld does not explicitly teach the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk. However, in view of the teachings of Terraweld, it is the examiner’s position that at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to only include a metal disk along with an individual vial containing an exothermic reaction weld metal in the foil weld metal pack (outer packaging) described by Terraweld in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the vial containing an exothermic reaction weld metal and the metal disk into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those two components are required to complete an exothermic weld. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) in Terraweld in this configuration in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
With respect to claim 2, Terraweld teaches whereon the tube comprises a cap on the tube so as to contain the weld metal in the tube (figure). Also note that the tube/vial of Terraweld must intrinsically have a cap to prevent the weld metal from spilling.
With respect to claim 4, Terraweld teaches wherein the metal disk is loose (broadest reasonable interpretation) within the outer packaging (foil weld metal pack).
With respect to claim 8, Terraweld teaches a single use moisture-resistant outer packaging with gripping tabs (broadest reasonable interpretation) that comes with everything you need to do the weld (figures; description; and review).
With respect to claim 9, Terraweld teaches wherein the one or more gripping tabs comprises a pull or tear strip (figures; description). Note that a strip is torn off the package when opening.
With respect to claim 12, Terraweld teaches product information on the outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) (figures).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermoweld in view of Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2).
With respect to claim 6, Thermoweld teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (cartridge) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a cap (special closure cap) removably secured on the tube so as to removably contain the weld metal a metal disk (metal discs); and an outer packaging (moisture resistant box) having a sealed (special shrink wrap plastic) area, the sealed area comprising the tube, cap and metal disk (figure; description; and product data sheet EXO 13 001 THERMOWELD CHARGES REV01.PDF).
Thermoweld does not explicitly teach that the tube also contains an ignition material; and the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk.
However, Alghusain teaches placing both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material as taught by Alghusain in the tube of Thermoweld in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver a mixture of the powdered materials to the desired location.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube containing the weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap in a sealed package in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube containing the weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap into a sealed packaging for packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec in view of Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2).
With respect to claim 6, Shopalltec teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (vial) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a cap removably secured on the tube so as to removably contain the weld metal in the tube (figures; and description, note that a cap is intrinsically require to prevent spillage of the contents of the vial); a metal disk (metal disc); and an outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) having a area that comprises the tube and the metal disk (figures; and description of the foil weld metal pack).
Shopalltec does not explicitly teach that the tube also contains an ignition material; and the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk.
However, Alghusain teaches placing both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material as taught by Alghusain in the tube of Shopalltec in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver a mixture of the powdered materials to the desired location.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube containing the weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap in a sealed package in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube containing the weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) in Shopalltec in this configuration in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terraweld (https://shopalltect.com/exothermic-weld-metal/).
With respect to claim 8, Shopalltec does not clearly depict that the outer packaging further comprises one or more gripping tabs configured for gripping by a user to open the outer packaging.
However, Terraweld teaches a single use moisture-resistant outer packaging with gripping tabs (broadest reasonable interpretation) that comes with everything you need to do the weld (figures; description; and review).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the outer packaging of Terraweld to hold the exothermic welding components of Shopalltec in order to form an easy-to-open moisture-resistant single use exothermic welding kit that increases shelf life and makes for easier transportation.
With respect to claim 9, Terraweld teaches wherein the one or more gripping tabs comprises a pull or tear strip (figures; description). Note that a strip is torn off the package when opening.
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec and Terraweld to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view Lee (KR-102306702A).
With respect to claim 10, Shopalltec and Terraweld do not teach wherein the one or more gripping tabs comprises two opposing tabs that allow the user to pull the two opposing tabs apart to open the outer packaging.
However, Lee teaches a zipper bag roll stock wherein the one or more gripping tabs comprises two opposing tabs (entry flaps) that allow the user to pull the two opposing tabs apart to open the outer packaging (figures 5-6; and the machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the opposing tabs of Lee in the collective kit of Shopalltec and Terraweld in order to allow the user easier access to the components inside the packaging. Furthermore, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the bag roll configuration of Lee to hold the components of Shopalltec and Terraweld in series in order to provide a unitary and resealable package for holding a plurality of components.
With respect to claims 13, Terraweld teaches an outer package that “comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss)” (review), but Shopalltec and Terraweld do not teach wherein the outer packaging comprises a plurality of the sealed areas, one of the plurality of the sealed areas consisting of the tube having the weld metal and the metal disk.
However, Lee teaches an outer packaging that comprises a plurality of the sealed areas (figures; and machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the plurality of sealed areas as taught by Lee to house individual exothermic welding kits consisting of the a tube (vial) having an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal) and a metal disk (metal disc) of Shopalltec in order to create an easy separable strip of a plurality kits that would be better organized and more easily carried to the point of use. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube having the weld metal and the metal disk into a series of sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) in Shopalltec in this configuration in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the outer packaging further comprises a tear line (110) between the plurality of the sealed areas (areas defined by seals 120).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee (KR-102306702A) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 10 above, and further in view the Ziploc reference.
With respect to claim 11, Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee do not teach that the two opposing tabs further comprise one or more grip enhancing structures.
However, the Ziploc reference teaches two opposing tabs further comprise one or more grip enhancing structures (figures; and description).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the grip enhancing structures of the Ziploc reference on the collective outer packaging of Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee in order to prevent finger slippage and make the packaging easier to open.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Mours et al. (CN-1638911A) (hereafter Mours).
With respect to claim 18, Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee do not teach further comprising an igniting device in another one of the sealed areas.
However, Mours teaches an exothermic welding kit that contains exothermic weld material and a consumable igniter (figures; claim 1; and machine translation). In addition, Lee teaches an outer packaging that comprises a plurality of the sealed areas (figures; and machine translation).
Thus, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to provide the igniter of Mours in a separate sealed area of the collective packaging of Shopalltec, Terraweld, and Lee in order to prevent the igniter from contacting the other components of the exothermic kit during transportation, which could possibly lead to damaging the components of the kit. Placing all of the single use/consumable components of an exothermic kit in a package having a plurality of sealed areas would also aid in organization and ease of use in the field.
PNG
media_image8.png
18
19
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermoweld in view of Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2).
With respect to claim 19, Thermoweld teaches a method of using an exothermic reaction weld metal, comprising: opening a sealed area of an outer packaging (moisture resistant box); removing a tube (cartridge) containing an weld metal from the sealed (special shrink wrap plastic) area (all of the components necessary for forming a weld including the metal disk are intrinsically removed from the packaging in order to from the weld); removing a cap (special closure cap) from the tube (the cap is intrinsically removed from the tube to remove the weld metal from the cartridge. For the sake of convenience, efficiency and productivity it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pour the materials necessary for forming the weld from the tube and onto the metal disk. Thermoweld also teaches using the metal disk and the weld metal to form a weld (figures; description; and product data sheet).
Thermoweld does not explicitly teach that the tube also contains ignition material; and the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk.
However, Alghusain teaches placing both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material in a tube in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver (pour) a mixture of the powdered materials to the desired location. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simultaneously pour weld metal and an ignition material onto the metal disk from a single package/tube in order to increase productivity and reduce waste.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube containing exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap in a sealed package in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. Furthermore, the claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube containing exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap into a sealed packaging for protection and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld.
With respect to claim 22, Thermoweld teaches igniting the weld metal which would intrinsically require an igniter (product data sheet).
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec in view of Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2).
With respect to claim 19, Shopalltec teaches a method of using an exothermic reaction weld metal, comprising: opening a sealed area of an outer packaging (foil weld metal pack); removing a tube (vial) containing an weld metal (weld metal) from the sealed area (all of the components necessary for forming a weld including the metal disk are intrinsically removed from the packaging in order to from the weld); removing a cap from the tube (figures; and description, note that a cap is intrinsically required to prevent spillage of the contents of the vial and intrinsically removed from the vial to remove the weld metal from the vial). For the sake of convenience, efficiency, and productivity it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pour the materials necessary for forming the weld from the tube and onto the metal disk. Shopalltec also teaches using the metal disk and the weld metal to form a weld (figures; and description of foil weld metal pack).
Shopalltec does not explicitly teach that the tube also contains ignition material; and the sealed area “consisting of” the tube and the metal disk.
However, Alghusain teaches placing both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material in a tube in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver (pour) a mixture of the powdered materials to the desired location. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to simultaneously pour weld metal and an ignition material onto the metal disk from a single package/tube in order to increase productivity and reduce waste.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube containing exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap in a sealed package in order to form a disposable and consumable exothermic welding kit of the desired configuration. The claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube containing exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the cap into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) in Shopalltec in this configuration in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
With respect to claim 22, Alghusain teaches using the igniting device to ignite the weld metal (abstract).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermoweld and Alghusain as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view Terraweld and Lee (KR-102306702A).
With respect to claim 20, Thermoweld does not teach wherein the outer packaging comprises a plurality of the sealed areas separated by a tear line, the method further comprising, prior to the opening step: separating one of the plurality of the sealed areas from the outer packaging.
However, Terraweld teaches single use exothermic welding packaging with a tear line (figures; and description) that “comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss)” (review).
While, Lee teaches wherein the outer packaging comprises a plurality of the sealed areas (areas defined by seals 120) separated by a tear line (110).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to package the components of Thermoweld in the collective bags of Terraweld and Lee, and separate one of the plurality of the sealed areas from the outer packaging prior to opening in order protect the components and only remove the desired quantity of kits and/or components from the main supply stock while ensuring that the kits and/or components remain in the packaging during transportation to the point of use.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec and Alghusain as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view Terraweld and Lee (KR-102306702A).
With respect to claim 20, Shopallec does not teach wherein the outer packaging comprises a plurality of the sealed areas separated by a tear line, the method further comprising, prior to the opening step: separating one of the plurality of the sealed areas from the outer packaging.
However, Terraweld teaches single use exothermic welding packaging with a tear line (figures; and description) that “comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss)” (review).
While, Lee teaches wherein the outer packaging comprises a plurality of the sealed areas (areas defined by seals 120) separated by a tear line (110).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to package the components of Shopalltec in the collective bags of Terraweld and Lee, and separate one of the plurality of the sealed areas from the outer packaging prior to opening in order protect the components and only remove the desired quantity of kits and/or components from the main supply stock while ensuring that the kits and/or components remain in the packaging during transportation to the point of use.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thermoweld, Terraweld, Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2), Mours et al. (CN-1638911A) (hereafter Mours), and Lusk (WO 2006/017480A1).
With respect to claim 23, Thermoweld teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (cartridge) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a metal disk (metal discs); and an outer packaging (moisture resistant box) having a sealed (special shrink wrap plastic) area in which the tube and the metal disk are contained (figures; description; and product data sheet).
Thermoweld does not teach that the tube also contains ignition material; and the plurality of consumable welding items consisting of an igniting device, a metal disk, and a tube having an exothermic reaction weld metal and an ignition material therein.
However, Alghusain teaches that it is known in the art to place both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material in a tube in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver the powdered materials to the desired location.
Thermoweld does not teach an exothermic welding kit that a consumable igniter.
However, Mours teaches an exothermic welding kit that contains a consumable igniter (figures; claim 1; and machine translation).
Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also provide an igniter in each outer packaging of Thermoweld in order to form a complete consumable single use kit. Having all of the single use/consumable components in a single package would aid in organization and ease of use in the field.
Thermoweld does not teach individualized packets or kits having an outer packaging defining a plurality of vacuum sealed areas; and a tear line separating each of the plurality of vacuum sealed areas.
However, Terraweld teaches single use exothermic welding packaging (figures; and description) that “comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss)” (review).
While, Lusk teaches individualized packets or kits having an outer packaging defining a plurality of vacuum sealed areas (paragraphs 55-56); and a tear line separating each of the plurality of vacuum sealed areas (paragraphs 55-56).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect a plurality of complete exothermic reaction consumable single use kits, as described above, with the packaging arrangement of Lusk in order to aid in organization, portability, and the transportation of a plurality of kits into the field for use.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art it, is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube having the exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the ignition device into each of the sealed areas in order to form a plurality of disposable and consumable exothermic welding kits attached to one another. Furthermore, the claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube having the exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the ignition device into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shopalltec, Terraweld, Alghusain (WO 2010/126785A2), Mours et al. (CN-1638911A) (hereafter Mours), and Lusk (WO 2006/017480A1).
With respect to claim 23, Shopalltec teaches a weld metal assembly, comprising: a tube (vial) containing an exothermic reaction weld metal (weld metal); a metal disk (metal disc); and an outer packaging (foil weld metal pack) having a sealed area in which the tube and the metal disk are contained (figures; and description of foil weld metal pack).
Shopalltec does not teach that the tube also contains ignition material; and the plurality of consumable welding items consisting of an igniting device, a metal disk, and a tube having an exothermic reaction weld metal and an ignition material therein.
However, Alghusain teaches that it is known in the art to place both a weld metal and an ignition material mixture in an enclosed package (page 7, lines 7-8).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place both the weld metal and ignition material in a tube in order to protect the contents of the tube and efficiently deliver the powdered materials to the desired location.
Shopalltec does not teach an exothermic welding kit that contains a consumable igniter.
However, Mours teaches an exothermic welding kit that contains a consumable igniter (figures; claim 1; and machine translation).
Accordingly, it is the examiner’s position that at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also provide an igniter in each outer packaging of Shopalltec in order to form a complete consumable single use kit. Having all of the single use/consumable components in a single package would aid in organization and ease of use in the field.
Shopalltec does not teach individualized packets or kits having an outer packaging defining a plurality of vacuum sealed areas; and a tear line separating each of the plurality of vacuum sealed areas.
However, Terraweld teaches single use exothermic welding packaging (figures; and description) that “comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss)” (review).
While, Lusk teaches individualized packets or kits having an outer packaging defining a plurality of vacuum sealed areas (paragraphs 55-56); and a tear line separating each of the plurality of vacuum sealed areas (paragraphs 55-56).
Thus, at the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect a plurality of complete exothermic reaction consumable single use kits, as described above, with the packaging arrangement of Lusk in order to aid in organization, portability, and the transportation of a plurality of kits into the field for use.
In view of the collective teachings of the prior art it, is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to place only the tube having the exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the ignition device into each of the sealed areas in order to form a plurality of disposable and consumable exothermic welding kits attached to one another. Furthermore, the claimed packaging configuration does not impart novelty and/or patentability because the artisan would have had the flexibility, knowledge, and ability to package the well-known exothermic consumables of the prior art in any desirable configuration. Thus, the artisan would have been motivated to place just the tube having the exothermic reaction weld metal and ignition material, the metal disk, and the ignition device into a sealed packaging for protection, convenience, and/or organization when only those components are further required to complete an exothermic weld.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the present application provides a sealed area that has only the items needed to complete the weld. The art of record either alone or in combination fails to provide the simple solution now claimed. The invention now claimed eliminates components required by the asserted teachings of TerraWeld and Shopalltec yet retains the single use functionality.
The examiner agrees that none of the cited prior art anticipates the instant claims because of the newly added “consisting of” language. However, it is the examiner’s position that only including the exothermic welding components required for forming the welded within a sealed area of a package is clearly obvious to the artisan for the reasons set forth above in the obviousness rejections. Having all of the required single use/consumable components in a package as taught by Shopalltec/Terraweld would aid in organization, transportation, ease of use in the field, and reduce packaging materials. The examiner’s position of obviousness is reinforced by the Terraweld review wherein it is stated that “[t]he packaging makes these easy to store in a trailer, each pack is waterproof and comes with everything you need to do the weld (no more hunting for those pesky caps that like to disappear into the abyss) and the price is right!” Adding components into the sealed packaging that are not needed to complete the weld would be unnecessary and wasteful. Clearly, it would have been obvious for the artisan to omit the additional baggie (containing the metal disk) as shown in Shopalltec and/or Terraweld in order to save on packaging materials and be environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735