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 with respect to claim(s) 11-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enyedy et al (US 2014/0091066) in view of Silk et al (US 2010/0012625).
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])
Enyedy fails to specifically disclose, the purge gas flow rate comprising a gas flow rate when the arc is absent.
Silk discloses a welding system for an arc welding device having an automatic flow controller. The controller which sets a desirable gas flow rate during a post welding process when the welding arc would be absent. The flow rate is controlled dynamically. (See Paragraph [0006], [0019], [0021], [0023]) A welding operator inputs the purge flow profile and the device controls the gas flow rate automatically. Regarding claim 12, the device has a normal flow rate when the arc is present.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to adapt Enyedy in view of Silk provide, the purge gas flow rate comprising a gas flow rate when the arc is absent for cooling the welding and minimizing oxidation.
Enyedy discloses, 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]) Regarding claim 26, Enyedy shows a welding tool configured to create the welding arc.
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 Silk et al (US 2010/0012625), 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights