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 § 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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,612,808 to Nelson et al. (N1) in view of US 2015/0239058 to Buescher et al. (B1) and 3,715,560 to Emmerson (E1).
In Re Claim 1:
N1 teaches:
An orbital welding system for welding the joins of tubes of tube plates of heat exchangers comprising: [Abstract notes the welding system is for a rotating (orbiting) welding head, for pipes (tubes or tube plates) and Col. 1, ll. 9-12 notes it is for joints/joins of said pipes. While it is silent for said tubes being used for heat exchangers, this is use language, further it is in said preamble, and thus non-limiting if the welding system could be used for pipes/tubes of a heat exchanger.]
An orbital welding head(W, Fig. 7, 70) [Col. 2, ll. 0-2, 38-58 notes the welding assembly rotates.]
A first supply line (66, 104, 106) of an inert gas for welding, [Col. 3, line 62 – Col. 4, line 23.]
Wherein said orbital welding head comprises:
A welding torch (70);
A stopping system for said torch against a tube plate, [Col. 3, ll. 30-34 notes a stop can be provided to stop the nozzle at its desired welding position, i.e. against the plate being welded.]
An expandable centring tool for fixing said orbital welding head at one of said tubes. [Col. 2, ll. 29-50 notes the clamping assembly, where by under pneumatic pressure the pins of the clamps move radially outward (i.e. expanding) to center the welding assembly in the middle of the pipe and hold it there.]
An actuator(Fig. 1, A, 18) for said centring tool, [Col. 2, ll. 6-15, notes pneumatic actuators. Ll. 24-50 notes actuators for actuating the clamping assemblies.]
A second supply line for a pressurized gas to operate said actuator, [Col. 2, ll. 22-28, notes a tank of compressed air or other suitable gas for actuation.]
N1 does not teach:
Wherein the gas for welding is for TIG welding, a programmer generator, and the second supply line is branched off at a point from said first supply line and carries the same inert gas.
N1 further teaches:
The inert gas comes through a diverter and manifold (110, 122) and the gas can pass through the controls for the clamps (actuators). [Col. 3, ll. 65-68.]
B1 teaches:
It is well-known for pipe-welding to utilize TIG Welding when using shielding gas. [Page 1, ¶8-9.] and further that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the obviousness that when using pneumatically actuated systems and claps, with a pressurized gas for example, to use the same supply of inert/shield gas, for operating the clamps, pistons, etc. which has the advantage that in the event of any leaks, no oxidizing damage can occur as only inert gas escapes by a stream of pressurized air crossing into the region being welded. [Pages 2-3, ¶22-32.]
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 invention of N1, such that the manifold diverter of N1, which includes directing inert shield gas past the clamps, could utilize the inert shield gas instead of the compressed gas, as well as TIG welding for the welding, as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully providing a manner of operating the clamps and actuators, using the same gas as the shielding, to reduce the risk of oxidation during leaks, as well as using TIG welding as an obvious to try alternative to the unlabeled welding of B1, with an expectation of successful operation. This would yield the gas used for TIG welding, and further, that that actuators were operated by a supply tube coming from the manifold/diverter in contact with the inert air gas supply and same gas as for shielding.
N1 as modified by B1 does not teach:
A programmer generator.
E1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a single pass welder in a tube/pipe, to use a electromechanical programmer to duplicate uniform precision controlled welds in the tubes, and producing superior quality welds. [Col. 1, ll. 30-44, Col. 2, ll. 8-16, 29-41.]
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 invention of N1, to use a programmer generator, as taught by E1, with the expectation of successfully providing an improved precision control of welds in the tubes and pipes, [Col. 1, ll. 30-44, Col. 2, ll. 8-16, 29-41.] This would yield a programmer generator.
In Re Claim 3:
N1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The orbital welding system according to claim 1, wherein:
Said first supply line comprises a pressure reducing device (N1, Fig. 1, 124). [Per N1, Col. 3, ll. 70-74 notes an orifice reduces the pressure in the region of the shielding gas exhaust.]
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N1, B1, and E1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0178507 to Rezapour (R1).
In Re Claim 2:
N1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The orbital welding system according to claim 1, wherein said second supply line includes a pressure regulator (N1, Fi1. 1, 120) at the branching point. [Examiner notes, the section (110, 122, 120 is the branching point where a unified flow is divided per the modification to the centering actuating/clamp flow and the shielding gas/welding actuator flow.E1, Col. 3, ll. 60-65.]
N1 further teaches:
The clamping system should utilize pressurized gas to move the clamps. [Col. 2, ll. 22-28, notes a tank of compressed air or other suitable gas for actuation.]
N1 is silent as to:
The pressure regulator is increasing the pressure.
R1 teaches:
In systems with a pressure regulator said can be utilized to increase the pressure of the inert gas (Paged 3, ¶23].
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 invention of N1, such that the pressure regulator was increasing the pressure of the fluid, as taught by R1, with the expectation of using a known in the art arrangement for the pressure regulator which would lowering the energy requirements of the supplied gas canister base line pressure, and increase the pressure being supplied to the clamping system controls for faster operation. This would yield a pressure multiplier device provided at said branching point.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over N1, B1, and E1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,935,081 to Becking (B2).
In Re Claim 4:
E1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The orbital welding system according to claim 1, wherein there is a second supply line which manages the passage of gas in said actuator for operation of said expandable centring too. [See Rejection of Claim 1.]
E1 as modified in claim 1 does not teach:
The use of a pneumatic valve for said management.
B2 teaches:
It is well-known in the art of welding devices, to utilize a three-way pneumatic valve to operate clamping actuator structures. This can be utilized to control the cams and multiple systems of cams and actuators more precisely, when attaching said to a constant source of pressurized air. [Col. 15, line 60 – Col. 16, line 36.]
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 invention of N1 to utilize a three-way pneumatic valve for controlling the cam/actuator structure as taught by B2, with the expectation of successfully providing actuators more precisely and uniformly controlled, when operating said pneumatic cams/clamps when supplied by a constant source of pressurized air. [Col. 15, line 60 – Col. 16, line 36.]
In Re Claim 5:
E1 as modified in claim 4 teaches:
The orbital welding system according to claim 4, wherein said pneumatic valve is of the three-way type to allow gas discharge from said actuator and disengagement from the tube of said expandable centering tool. [B2, Col. 15, line 60 to Col. 16, line 36 notes the three way pneumatic valve which allows air discharge and inflation of the cam structures chambers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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. Examiner notes the art supporting a centering tool which could interact with a shield gas suitable for splitting, such as N1, is not suitable for further amendment into the alternative expansion type system of claim 6 and its dependents, when being modified as required to meet Claim 1. Examiner notes the closest in art prior art which might provide some features, is CN 109454395 to Jun et al.; however, it lacks axial locking grippers, whereas E1 being modified would not provide the axial locking grippers, and would oppose a traction rode with said actuator, given the pneumatic cam system of E1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0028082 to Miller et al. teaches When using clamps to apply an axial load to a stud [Page 2, ¶53] one can utilize a shielded inert gas to operate the motors, clamps, actuators as well as shielding the welding, [Page 3, ¶61-62] and this is an obvious variant to providing control of said elements such as the motor with a compressed air tank, [Pages 5-6, ¶81.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745