DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 21, 2023 and September 23, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 19, Line 2 “The” is capitalized. Applicant is suggested to change the “T” to lower case for grammatical reasons, since this is not the beginning of a sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (US 2004/0074884 A1), hereinafter Butler, in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 2020/0238418 A1), hereinafter Hutchinson.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 1 of Butler teaches a method performed in a welding or cutting system (see paragraph [0001]) configured to deliver weld power to an electrode tip (145) extending from a torch (106) to initiate an arc on a workpiece (150, 152), comprising: sampling a sensed voltage indicative of a weld voltage provided to the electrode tip (145), to produce voltage values; voltage values that represent a contact resistance between the electrode tip (145) and the workpiece (150, 152) (see paragraphs [0032-0034] discussing sensing); and upon detecting a decrease in voltage values to below a threshold (prior to zero) as an indication of a weld start, increasing the weld power supplied to the electrode tip (145) to initiate the arc on the workpiece [0032-0045]. Paragraphs [0032-0034] describes a constant sensing voltage provided by monitoring circuit (112). After contact is detected by a short, the sensed voltage is zero. Paragraphs [0035-0040] discuss intermediate steps after contact (a short) is detected before an arc is created. Paragraphs [0041-0044] discuss the initiation of the arc.
Butler does not expressly teach computing a time derivative of voltage values to produce voltage derivative values, upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below the time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start as claimed. However, using voltage derivative values would have been obvious in view of Hutchinson.
The disclosure of Hutchinson relates to a method of welding. In one instance, Hutchinson desires to determine when a short circuit is about to clear. To do so, Hutchinson lists variables which are known in the art to provide feedback and indicate the state of the short circuit, including voltage and/or the time derivative thereof [0021]. Thus, Hutchinson evidences that rather than only voltage, there are other variables, such as the derivative of voltage, which are readily usable with preset thresholds to determine the state of contact between the electrode tip and the working piece. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known variables, predictably resulting in the determination of the state of contact. The limitation of upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below a time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start is treated as a result of the modification. This is evidenced to be known by both Butler and Hutchinson. For instance, paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses the reduction of voltage to zero when contact occurs, i.e. the rate of change of voltage is decreasing as contact occurs. Hutchinson is considered triggered when separation occurs in which variables are measured to exceed a threshold [0020-0022]. In other words, the values go up to exceed a threshold when the opposite of coming into contact occurs. Thus, coming into contact will result in the reverse: decreasing back below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Butler with the steps of computing a time derivative of voltage values to produce voltage derivative values, upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below the time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start as exemplified by Hutchinson by simply substituting the observed variable, predictably resulting in the proper determination of the state of contact since the state of contact is known to be observable through more variables than exclusively voltage.
Regarding Claim 2, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results wherein: detecting the decrease indicates that the contact resistance is sufficiently low to initiate the arc. Steps 206-224 in Figure 2 of Butler describe creating the arc after contact [0034-0044]. The discussion in Claim 1 above explains recognition that the time-derivative of voltage decreases as contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 3, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Butler teaches performing sampling, computing, and detecting repeatedly over a time period in which the electrode tip (145) is moved from a first position separated from the work piece (150, 152) to a second position in contact with the workpiece (150, 152). Paragraphs [0032-0034] discuss the constant monitoring of sensing voltage using monitor circuit (112) to determine if contact occurs. See also Figure 1 with leads (162, 164).
Regarding Claim 4, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results wherein: detecting includes detecting the decrease in the voltage derivative values from (i) first voltage derivative values that are above the time-derivative threshold because the weld voltage is an open-circuit voltage due to the electrode tip being separated from the workpiece, to (ii) second voltage derivative values that are below the time-derivative threshold because the weld voltage is a closed-circuit voltage due to contact between the electrode tip and the workpiece as claimed. Paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses a sensing voltage remaining constant until contact, in which it decreases to zero from a closed-circuit voltage due to contact. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. When the threshold is exceeded, it signifies lack of contact occurs. Thus, in the reverse, when the values go under a threshold, this signifies contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 5, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results wherein: detecting further includes detecting the decrease in the voltage derivative values from (i) first voltage derivative values that are above the time-derivative threshold and represent that the contact resistance is too high to initiate the arc, to (ii) second voltage derivative values that are below the time-derivative threshold and represent that the contact resistance is sufficiently low to initiate the arc. Paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses a sensing voltage remaining constant until contact, in which it decreases to zero due to contact. A decreasing voltage means the change in rate turns negative. Initiation of the arc occurs only after contact is detected (after step 206). Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. When the threshold is exceeded, it signifies lack of contact occurs. Thus, in the reverse, when the values go under a threshold, this signifies contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 6, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results wherein: detecting includes repeatedly comparing the voltage derivative values to the time- derivative threshold. Paragraphs [0032-0034] of Butler discuss the repeated monitoring of sensing voltage using monitor circuit (112) to determine if contact occurs. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss usage of different variables instead of just voltage in comparison to a threshold, including the voltage derivative values.
Regarding Claim 7, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results in prior to increasing the weld power, detecting that the voltage derivative values remain below the time-derivative threshold in an uninterrupted manner for a predetermined time period. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss usage of different variables instead of just voltage in comparison to a threshold, including the voltage derivative values. The claim does not specify what a “predetermined time period” would encompass. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this includes the time it is detected and indicated to the system that the values are below the time-derivative threshold.
Regarding Claim 8, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1 and 3 of Butler teach wherein the welding or cutting system includes a power supply (120) configured to generate the weld power responsive to pulse width modulation that is applied to the power supply (120), wherein: increasing the weld power includes increasing a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation from a first duty cycle to a second duty cycle that is greater than the first duty cycle. Paragraph [0027] describes power supply (120) providing weld power. Paragraphs [0045, 0051] describe the use of a pulse width modulation having a duty cycle. This is shown schematically in the plots of voltage (310) and amperage (312) in Figure 3 by the pulses (322, 324), which rise from a first value on the left to a second steady value towards the right, representing the change form a first duty cycle to a second duty cycle that is greater than the first duty cycle. The graphs are understood to be the average voltage and current provided by the pulse with modulation shown schematically in phantom.
Regarding Claim 9, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Hutchinson results wherein: computing includes computing each voltage derivative value based on a difference between a first voltage value and a second voltage value of the voltage values and a time difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. The computing based on a difference and a time difference is the known definition of a derivative. See “Derivative” cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claim 10, Butler and Hutchinson teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Butler teaches wherein the welding or cutting system is configured to perform tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding [0016]. The background also discusses metal inert gas (MIG) welding, shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) [0002].
Regarding Claim 11, Figure 1 of Butler teaches an apparatus for welding or cutting (see paragraph [0001]) comprising: a power supply (120) configured to provide weld power to an electrode tip (145) extending from a torch (106) to initiate an arc on a workpiece (150, 152) (see paragraph [0027]); and a controller (110) coupled to the power supply (120) and configured to perform: receiving voltage values indicative of a weld voltage provided to the electrode tip (145) by the power supply (120); computing voltage values that represent a contact resistance between the electrode tip (145) and the workpiece (150, 152) (see paragraphs [0032-0034] discussing sensing); and upon detecting a decrease in voltage values to below a threshold (prior to zero) as an indication of a weld start, controlling the power supply (120) to increase the weld power supplied to the electrode tip (145) to initiate the arc on the workpiece [0032-0045]. Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraphs [0032-0034] describes a constant sensing voltage provided by monitoring circuit (112). After contact is detected by a short, the sensed voltage is zero. Paragraphs [0035-0040] discuss intermediate steps after contact (a short) is detected before an arc is created. Paragraphs [0041-0044] discuss the initiation of the arc.
Butler does not expressly teach computing a time derivative of voltage values to produce voltage derivative values, upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below the time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start as claimed. However, using voltage derivative values would have been obvious in view of Hutchinson.
The disclosure of Hutchinson relates to an apparatus for welding. In one instance, Hutchinson desires to determine when a short circuit is about to clear. To do so, Hutchinson lists variables which are known in the art to provide feedback and indicate the state of the short circuit, including voltage and/or the time derivative thereof [0021]. Thus, Hutchinson evidences that rather than only voltage, there are other variables, such as the derivative of voltage, which are readily usable with preset thresholds to determine the state of contact between the electrode tip and the working piece. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known variables, predictably resulting in the determination of the state of contact. The limitation of upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below a time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start is treated as a result of the modification. This is evidenced to be known by both Butler and Hutchinson. For instance, paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses the reduction of voltage to zero when contact occurs, i.e. the rate of change of voltage is decreasing as contact occurs. Hutchinson is considered triggered when separation occurs in which variables are measured to exceed a threshold [0020-0022]. In other words, the values go up to exceed a threshold when the opposite of coming into contact occurs. Thus, coming into contact will result in the reverse: decreasing back below a threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus taught by Butler with the steps of computing a time derivative of voltage values to produce voltage derivative values, upon detecting a decrease in the voltage derivative values from above a time-derivative threshold to below the time-derivative threshold as an indication of a weld start as exemplified by Hutchinson by simply substituting the observed variable, predictably resulting in the proper determination of the state of contact since the state of contact is known to be observable through more variables than exclusively voltage.
Regarding Claim 12, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein: the decrease in the voltage derivative values from above the time-derivative threshold to below the time-derivative threshold indicates that the contact resistance is sufficiently low to initiate the arc. Steps 206-224 in Figure 2 of Butler describe creating the arc after contact [0034-0044]. The discussion in Claim 11 above explains recognition that the time-derivative of voltage decreases as contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 13, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
Butler teaches wherein the controller (110) is further configured to perform: sampling, computing, and detecting repeatedly over a time period in which the electrode tip (145) is moved from a first position separated from the work piece (150, 152) to a second position in contact with the workpiece (150, 152). Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraphs [0032-0034] discuss the constant monitoring of sensing voltage using monitor circuit (112) to determine if contact occurs. See also Figure 1 with leads (162, 164).
Regarding Claim 14, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein: the controller is configured to perform detecting by detecting the decrease in the voltage derivative values from (i) first voltage derivative values that are above the time-derivative threshold because the weld voltage is an open-circuit voltage due to the electrode tip being separated from the workpiece, to (ii) second voltage derivative values that are below the time-derivative threshold because the weld voltage is a closed-circuit voltage due to contact between the electrode tip and the workpiece as claimed. Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses a sensing voltage remaining constant until contact, in which it decreases to zero from a closed-circuit voltage due to contact. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. When the threshold is exceeded, it signifies lack of contact occurs. Thus, in the reverse, when the values go under a threshold, this signifies contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 15, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein: the controller is configured to perform detecting by detecting the decrease in the voltage derivative values from (i) first voltage derivative values that are above the time-derivative threshold and represent that the contact resistance is too high to initiate the arc, to (ii) second voltage derivative values that are below the time-derivative threshold and represent that the contact resistance is sufficiently low to initiate the arc. Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraph [0034] of Butler discusses a sensing voltage remaining constant until contact, in which it decreases to zero due to contact. A decreasing voltage means the change in rate turns negative. Initiation of the arc occurs only after contact is detected (after step 206). Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. When the threshold is exceeded, it signifies lack of contact occurs. Thus, in the reverse, when the values go under a threshold, this signifies contact occurs.
Regarding Claim 16, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein: the controller is configured to perform detecting by repeatedly comparing the voltage derivative values to the time-derivative threshold. Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraphs [0032-0034] of Butler discuss the repeated monitoring of sensing voltage using monitor circuit (112) to determine if contact occurs. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss usage of different variables instead of just voltage in comparison to a threshold, including the voltage derivative values.
Regarding Claim 17, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein the controller is configured to perform: prior to increasing the weld power, detecting that the voltage derivative values remain below the time-derivative threshold in an uninterrupted manner for a predetermined time period. Paragraphs [0024-0025] of Butler describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss usage of different variables instead of just voltage in comparison to a threshold, including the voltage derivative values. The claim does not specify what a “predetermined time period” would encompass. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this includes the time it is detected and indicated to the system that the values are below the time-derivative threshold.
Regarding Claim 18, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
Figures 1 and 3 of Butler teach wherein: the power supply (120) is configured to provide the weld power responsive to pulse width modulation that is applied by the controller (110); and the controller (110) is configured to perform generating the pulse width modulation and to perform increasing the weld power includes increasing a duty cycle of the pulse width modulation from a first duty cycle to a second duty cycle that is greater than the first duty cycle. Paragraphs [0024-0025] describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraph [0027] describes power supply (120) providing weld power. Paragraphs [0045, 0051] describe the use of a pulse width modulation having a duty cycle. This is shown schematically in the plots of voltage (310) and amperage (312) in Figure 3 by the pulses (322, 324), which rise from a first value on the left to a second steady value towards the right, representing the change form a first duty cycle to a second duty cycle that is greater than the first duty cycle. The graphs are understood to be the average voltage and current provided by the pulse with modulation shown schematically in phantom.
Regarding Claim 19, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
The modification in Claim 11 by Hutchinson results wherein: the controller performs computing each voltage derivative value based on a difference between a first voltage value and a second voltage value of the voltage values and a time difference between the first voltage value and the second voltage value. Paragraphs [0024-0025] of Butler describe the controller (110) configured to perform all the described functions of the Butler. Paragraphs [0020-0022] of Hutchinson discuss the usage of variables, which include the voltage derivative values, with respect to a threshold. The computing based on a difference and a time difference is the known definition of a derivative. See “Derivative” cited as pertinent art.
Regarding Claim 20, Butler and Hutchinson teach the apparatus as set forth in Claim 11.
Butler teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to perform tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding [0016]. The background also discusses metal inert gas (MIG) welding, shielded metal arc welding (SMAW) [0002].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: “Derivative” evidences the known definition of a derivative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights