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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (US 2012/0255988) in view of Escoe et al (US 2008/0134800).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Perry discloses a user interface (See Fig 3) for directing the flow of a shielding gas with a first output at a selected rate and a second output at a second selected rate. However, Perry fails to disclose “the second unit of measurement is different from the first unit of measurement.
The only structural limitation in the claim is the user interface. The claim does not require the first and second rates be output simultaneously. The chosen unit of measurement is neither a structural or functional limitations. It is completely dependent on a user preference or desired application of the device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone.
However, Escoe discloses a device configured for outputting a first detected measurement in a first unit, and a second detected measurement, when the device is used a second time, in a second unit. (See Paragraph [0038]-[0039]) An algorithm is used to convert between units. (See Paragraph [0038])
It would have been obvious to adapt Perry in view of Escoe to provide the second measurement unit being different from the first for allowing the user to select between imperial units or metric unit.
The claim is a combination that merely unite old elements with no change in their respective functions, and which yield predictable results, since Applicant's Specification does not present any evidence that modifications necessary to effect combinations are uniquely challenging or difficult for person of ordinary skill in art, and since claimed improvement is no more than simple substitution of one known element for another, or mere application of known technique to piece of prior art ready for improvement. Applicant argues the benefit is to “prevent or at least reduce user-based unit conversion errors.” However, if each flow rate is different and measured in a different unit, there is no conversion to be done. Regardless, Escoe discloses (See Paragraph [0007]) displaying the different unit is to avoid manual calculation.
Displaying a different unit of measurement is a trivial step and would be considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This limitation is neither structural or functional. One having ordinary skill in the art would choose to output a different unit of measurement based on the desired application, desired function or intended use of the device. The unit of measurement would not affect the operation of the device as the gas would have the same flow rate regardless of is being measure in liters per minute or cubic feet per hour. Changing the unit of measurement may allow the gas to be flowed in a more precise manner by truncating insignificant digits. However, this is within the skill or a person in the art. The first rate being equivalent to the second rate is considered obvious as the flow rate would be based on the intended use or desired application. The flow rates may also be set by the user. If the user needs the flow rates to be equal for a specific application, it would be obvious to set the flow rates equal.
Perry discloses, regarding claim 3, an operator enters the gas flow rates. (See Paragraphs [0021], [0023], [0027]) Regarding claim 4, as the user interface is on a brazing apparatus it is “capable” of being attached to a welding device. Regarding claim 6-7, a regulator valve is to regulate the flow to match the set flow rate. (See Paragraph [0018]) Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the flow rate is manually entered. Regarding claim 9, the regulator valve maintains the desired flow by measuring the pressure and adjusting accordingly. (See Paragraph [0018], [0019]) A regulator valve is to regulate the flow to match the set flow rate. (See Paragraph [0018]) The gas would be purges to maintain the flow.
Regarding claim 10, Perry may fail to disclose a proportional valve or servo valve. However, it would have been obvious to provide a proportional or servo valve as these are all obvious variants or a valve used for regulating gas flow. The type of valve would be selected based on the intended use or desired application.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enyedy et al (US 2014/0091066).
Enyedy discloses, regarding claim 11-13, 16 A welding system, comprising: a user interface (22) configured to receive an input comprising a purge gas flow rate for use when a welding arc is absent (the device allows a user to select a preferred flow rate, See Paragraph [0029]) ; a processor configured to determine a desirable purge flow rate for the shielding gas based on the input; and a flow regulator configured to control a flow rate of the shielding gas when the welding arc is absent to obtain the desirable purge flow rate. (A rate controller 26 and valve 42 are controlled by a feedback control to monitor the flow rate and purge based on the input. A desirable flow rate is determined based on the feedback, during operation See Paragraphs [0031]-[0033])
The use of the user interface when the arc is absent is not a structural limitation or a function language. A welding device for creating an arc, or a welding arc is not claimed, only a use of the device during a specific condition. The prior art contains the claimed structure and functional language. The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to issue of patentability of the machine itself. For example, the intended use of “when an arc is absent” is not given patentable weight.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone.
It would have been obvious to configure the user interface to be used when an arc is absent and a flow regulator configured to control a flow rate of the shielding gas when the welding arc is absent to obtain the desirable purge flow rate since it has been held that the manner or method in which machine is to be utilized is not germane to issue of patentability of machine itself and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art- if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
Regarding claim 14, a regulator 36 is to adjust the flow rate based on feedback, which would be the result of pressure fluctuations. (See Paragraphs [0011] and [0030]) Regarding claim 15, a proportional valve is used to adjust the flow rate. (See Paragraph [0032])
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enyedy et al (US 2014/0091066) in view of Perry (US 2012/0255988) and Escoe et al (US 2008/0134800).
The teachings of Enyedy have been discussed above. Enyedy fails to disclose the system of claim 17, wherein the user interface is configured to display the flow rate of the shielding gas. The system of claim 17, wherein the user interface is configured to display the flow rate of the shielding gas as a first rate with a first unit of measurement, and as a second rate with a second unit of measurement that is different than the first unit of measurement, the first rate being equivalent to the second rate. The system of claim 18, wherein the processor is configured to determine the second rate based on the first rate and a unit conversion algorithm. The system of claim 18, wherein the user interface is configured to display the second flow rate in response to an input received by the user interface.
However, Perry discloses regarding claims 17-20 a user interface (See Fig 3) for directing the flow of a shielding gas with a first output at a selected rate and a second output at a second selected rate. Any conversion would be based on an algorithm. Fig 3 shows the flow rates being displayed on a user interface. However, Perry fails to disclose “the second unit of measurement is different from the first unit of measurement.
The only structural limitation in the claim is the user interface. The claim does not require the first and second rates be output simultaneously. The chosen unit of measurement is neither a structural or functional limitations. It is completely dependent on a user preference or desired application of the device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone.
However, Escoe discloses a device configured for outputting a first detected measurement in a first unit, and a second detected measurement, when the device is used a second time, in a second unit. (See Paragraph [0038]-[0039]) An algorithm is used to convert between units. (See Paragraph [0038])
It would have been obvious to adapt Perry in view of Escoe to provide the second measurement unit being different from the first for allowing the user to select between imperial units or metric unit.
The claim is a combination that merely unite old elements with no change in their respective functions, and which yield predictable results, since Applicant's Specification does not present any evidence that modifications necessary to effect combinations are uniquely challenging or difficult for person of ordinary skill in art, and since claimed improvement is no more than simple substitution of one known element for another, or mere application of known technique to piece of prior art ready for improvement. Applicant argues the benefit is to “prevent or at least reduce user-based unit conversion errors.” However, if each flow rate is different and measured in a different unit, there is no conversion to be done. Regardless, Escoe discloses (See Paragraph [0007]) displaying the different unit is to avoid manual calculation.
Displaying a different unit of measurement is a trivial step and would be considered obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. This limitation is neither structural or functional. One having ordinary skill in the art would choose to output a different unit of measurement based on the desired application, desired function or intended use of the device. The unit of measurement would not affect the operation of the device as the gas would have the same flow rate regardless of is being measure in liters per minute or cubic feet per hour. Changing the unit of measurement may allow the gas to be flowed in a more precise manner by truncating insignificant digits. However, this is within the skill or a person in the art. The first rate being equivalent to the second rate is considered obvious as the flow rate would be based on the intended use or desired application. The flow rates may also be set by the user. If the user needs the flow rates to be equal for a specific application, it would be obvious to set the flow rates equal.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (US 2012/0255988) in view of Escoe et al (US 2008/0134800) and Dantinne et al (US 2009/0152251).
The teachings of Perry have been discussed above. Perry fails to disclose the user interface has a plurality of welding parameter options, or is configured to receive an input comprising a particular welding parameter option of the plurality of welding parameter options.
Dantinne discloses a user interface 26 having a plurality of welding parameter options. (See Fig 3) The user inputs welding parameters. (See Paragraph [0004], [0016]) It would have been obvious to adapt Perry in view of Dantinne to provide the user interface has a plurality of welding parameter options, or is configured to receive an input comprising a particular welding parameter option of the plurality of welding parameter options for controlling the welding device based on individual user preferences.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 11-16, the use of the user interface when the arc is absent is not a structural limitation or a function language. A welding device for creating an arc, or a welding arc is not claimed, only a use of the device during a specific condition. The prior art contains the claimed structure and functional language. The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to issue of patentability of the machine itself. For example, the intended use of “when an arc is absent” is not given patentable weight.
While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone.
It would have been obvious to configure the user interface to be used when an arc is absent and a flow regulator configured to control a flow rate of the shielding gas when the welding arc is absent to obtain the desirable purge flow rate since it has been held that the manner or method in which machine is to be utilized is not germane to issue of patentability of machine itself and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art- if the prior art has the capability to so perform.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding claims 1-10, the only structural limitation in the claim is the user interface. The claim does not require the first and second rates be output simultaneously. The chosen unit of measurement is neither a structural or functional limitations. It is completely dependent on a user preference or desired application of the device. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function alone.
However, Escoe discloses a device configured for outputting a first detected measurement in a first unit, and a second detected measurement, when the device is used a second time, in a second unit. (See Paragraph [0038]-[0039]) An algorithm is used to convert between units. (See Paragraph [0038])
It would have been obvious to adapt Perry in view of Escoe to provide the second measurement unit being different from the first for allowing the user to select between imperial units or metric unit.
The claim is a combination that merely unite old elements with no change in their respective functions, and which yield predictable results, since Applicant's Specification does not present any evidence that modifications necessary to effect combinations are uniquely challenging or difficult for person of ordinary skill in art, and since claimed improvement is no more than simple substitution of one known element for another, or mere application of known technique to piece of prior art ready for improvement. Applicant argues the benefit is to “prevent or at least reduce user-based unit conversion errors.” However, if each flow rate is different and measured in a different unit, there is no conversion to be done. Regardless, Escoe discloses (See Paragraph [0007]) displaying the different unit is to avoid manual calculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/17/2026