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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2023, 09/19/2024, 07/16/2025, 08/01/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 2 (Fig.2), consisting of claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledge. Species 1 (Fig.1) and Species 3 (Fig.3) are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the form” in line 3. This should be changed to “a form”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the same size” in line 11. This should be changed to “a same size” or “same size”.
Claims 2-20 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the difference” in line 2. This should be changed to “a difference” because it is noted that “the difference” recited in claim 2 is different from “a difference” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, “a difference” recited in claim 1 is the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter, while “the difference” recited in claim 2 is the difference between the opening diameter and the inside diameter.
Claims 10-11, 13, 16, 20 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 5 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 5 refers to the inlet opening of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 19 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the form” in line 3. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 6 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 6 refers to the multiplicity of inlet openings of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the form” in line 3. This should be changed to “a form”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 13 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 13 refers to the inlet opening of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 14 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 14 refers to the inlet opening of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 15 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 15 refers to the inlet opening of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 16 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 16 refers to the multiplicity of inlet openings of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 17 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 17 refers to the multiplicity of inlet openings of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form” because it is noted that “form of a ring” recited in claim 18 is different from “form of a ring” recited previously in claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 refers to the inert gas inlet, while claim 18 refers to the multiplicity of inlet openings of the inert gas inlet.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a ring” in line 2. It is understood that the limitation “the form of a ring” recited in claim 19 refers to the limitation “the form of a ring” recited previously in claim 5. Therefore, the limitation “a ring” recited in claim 19 should be changed to “the ring” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 5 (line 2).
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the form” in line 2. This should be changed to “a form”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 8, 11-12, 15, 18 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the setting axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “setting axis” recited previously. It is unclear what the limitation “the setting axis” refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation “the setting axis” will be interpreted as the welding axis.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the surrounding area” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “surrounding area” recited previously. It is unclear what the limitation “the surrounding area” refers to what area. For examination purposes, the limitation “the surrounding area” will be interpreted as the area around the inert gas cover.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the setting axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “setting axis” recited previously. It is unclear what the limitation “the setting axis” refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation “the setting axis” will be interpreted as the welding axis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the setting axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “setting axis” recited previously. It is unclear what the limitation “the setting axis” refers to. For examination purposes, the limitation “the setting axis” will be interpreted as the welding axis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nab et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0326675 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1) along a welding axis (welding axis, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) in a welding direction (welding direction, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), comprising
an inert gas cover (protective gas mouthpiece 30, Nab Fig.1) with an inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3; see the annotated inlet of the supply channel 40a in Nab annotated Fig.1 below) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (welding axis, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), with an inert gas outlet (outlet, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), and with an opening (opening, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) facing in the welding direction (welding direction, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), wherein the opening (opening, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) has transversely to the welding direction (welding direction, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) an opening diameter (Nab annotated Fig.1 below shows that the opening has transversely to the welding direction an opening diameter), wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3; see the annotated inlet of the supply channel 40a in Nab annotated Fig.1 below) is at an inlet distance (inlet distance, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) from the opening (opening, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) counter to the welding direction (welding direction, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), wherein the inert gas outlet (outlet, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) is at an outlet distance (outlet distance, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) from the opening (opening, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) counter to the welding direction (welding direction, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), further comprising a holding device (holding device includes the housing portion 24 and the retention device 20, Nab Fig.1) for holding the welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) within the inert gas cover (protective gas mouthpiece 30, Nab Fig.1) during a welding operation (as shown in Nab Fig.1), wherein the holding device (holding device includes the housing portion 24 and the retention device 20, Nab Fig.1) has an outside diameter (outside diameter, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) and a stud receptacle (stud receptacle, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) with an inside diameter (inside diameter, Nab annotated Fig.1 below), wherein the outlet distance (outlet distance, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) is at least half of a difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance (inlet distance, Nab annotated Fig.1 below) (It is noted that the limitation “the outlet distance is at least half of a difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Nab discloses the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance because the Nab outlet distance is greater than the Nab inlet distance, see Nab annotated Fig.1 below and Nab Par.0080 discloses: “The supply channels 40 a, 40 b, 40 c extend from the axial end 52 of the base member 32 facing away from the workpiece 14 at a supply angle 42 in an inclined manner in the direction towards the cleaning space 38.” & Nab Par.0087 discloses: “The protective gas mouthpiece 30 further has a protective gas distributor device 50 which is arranged at an axially upper end 52 of the base member 32.”; therefore, the Nab outlet distance [see Nab annotated Fig.1 below] is greater than the Nab inlet distance [see Nab annotated Fig.1 below]. It is noted that the limitation the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance means the outlet distance is at least equal to or greater than the inlet distance; furthermore, the elected Species 2 (Fig.2) of the Instant Application defines the outlet distance is greater than the inlet distance, as shown in Fig.2 of the Instant Application and as indicated by Par.0028 of the Instant Application: “the outlet distance aA is greater than the inlet distance aE”).
PNG
media_image1.png
888
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nab discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Nab also discloses:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the inside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation “the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the inside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Nab discloses the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, as cited and explained in details in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 6, Nab discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Nab also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (welding axis, Nab annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
888
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Nab discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Nab also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (welding axis, Nab annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
888
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 1-5, 7-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016100923 U1 (Translation is attached, hereinafter DE’923) in view of Schmitt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0096366 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DE’923 discloses a welding device (welding device, as shown in DE’923 Figs.1-2 or see annotated Fig.3 below) for welding a welding stud (welding element 2, DE’923 Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 3, DE’923 Fig.1) along a welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) in a welding direction (welding direction, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below), comprising
an inert gas cover (inert gas cover, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) with an inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”), with an inert gas outlet (outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3), and with an opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) facing in the welding direction (welding direction, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below), wherein the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) has transversely to the welding direction (welding direction, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) an opening diameter (DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below shows the opening has transversely to the welding direction an opening diameter), wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) is at an inlet distance (inlet distance, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) from the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) counter to the welding direction (welding direction, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below), wherein the inert gas outlet (outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) is at an outlet distance (outlet distance, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) from the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) counter to the welding direction (welding direction, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below), further comprising a holding device (welding element holder 1, DE’923 Fig.1) for holding the welding stud (welding element 2, DE’923 Fig.1) within the inert gas cover (inert gas cover, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) during a welding operation (as shown in DE’923 Fig.1 or 3), wherein the holding device (welding element holder 1, DE’923 Fig.1) has an outside diameter (outside diameter, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) and a stud receptacle (stud receptacle, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) with an inside diameter (inside diameter, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1070
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
DE’923 does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of a difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance.
Schmitt teaches a welding device (welding device 50, Schmitt Fig.1) for welding a welding stud (stud 22, Schmitt Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 24, Schmitt Fig.1):
wherein the outlet distance (outlet distance, Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below) is at least half of a difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance (inlet distance, Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below) (It is noted that the limitation “the outlet distance is at least half of a difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schmitt teaches that the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, see Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
871
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923, by adding the teachings of the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, as taught by Schmitt, in order to create a balanced circumferential shielding gas flow path around the stud, and also cause the shielding gas to travel a longer path around the stud prior to discharge, thereby improving shielding uniformity, reducing atmospheric contamination of the molten weld pool, and enhancing weld consistency and quality.
Regarding claim 2, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the inside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation “the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the inside diameter or is at least the same size as the inlet distance” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination. In this case, Schmitt teaches that the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 3, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance means the outlet distance is equal to at least half the size of the inlet distance or greater than half the size of the inlet distance. Thus, in this case, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance because Schmitt teaches that the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
DE’923 in view of Schmitt does not explicitly teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter
Regarding the limitation that the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding the outlet distance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches certain dimension of the outlet distance (as cited, explained, and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific dimension of the outlet distance that is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the dimension of the outlet distance to be at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would impact the flow path, travel length and time of the protective (inert) gas surround the welding stud. A welding device with an outlet distance that is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would create an optimal circumferential flow path, longer travel length for the protective (inert) gas around the welding stud and welding region before the gas reaches the outlet in order to promote uniform distribution of the protective (inert) gas, reduce oxidation of the molten weld pool, and increase welding quality and process reliability. Thus, the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by making the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 4, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) in order to generate a flow of inert gas (flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3) along the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) radially to the setting axis (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the limitation “the setting axis” above; in this case, the setting axis is interpreted as the longitudinal axis L, see DE’923 Fig.1) when the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) is covered (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”, and see the flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3; therefore, the inert gas inlet is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening in order to generate a flow of inert gas along the opening radially to the setting axis when the opening is covered.).
PNG
media_image2.png
1070
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises an inlet opening (opening of the inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) in the form of a ring surrounding the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”).
Regarding claim 7, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas outlet (outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises a multiplicity of outlet openings (openings of outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) (it is noted that DE’923 show the 16 as channels, see DE’923 Figs.1, 3) arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 7 discloses: “plurality of corresponding outlet openings 16 formed, in particular uniformly over the circumference of the welding chamber arrangement 5 distributed and preferably within the lower half of the welding chamber arrangement 5”).
Regarding claim 8, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas outlet (outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) leads radially with respect to the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) through the inert gas cover (inert gas cover, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) outward into the surrounding area (DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below shows that outlet openings 16 lead radially with respect to the longitudinal axis through the inert gas cover outward into the surrounding area).
PNG
media_image2.png
1070
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, DE’923 does not explicitly disclose
wherein the inert gas outlet is arranged offset from the inert gas inlet in a direction transverse to the welding axis.
Schmitt teaches (Schmitt Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas outlet (outlets, Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below) is arranged offset from the inert gas inlet (inlet, Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below) in a direction transverse to the welding axis (welding axis 26, Schmitt Fig.1) (Schmitt annotated Fig.1 below shows the inert gas outlet is arranged offset from the inert gas inlet in a direction transverse to the welding axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
871
990
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas outlet is arranged offset from the inert gas inlet in a direction transverse to the welding axis, as taught by Schmitt, in order to avoid the interference between the inlet and the outlet of the inert gas, and create a circumferential flow path of shielding gas around the stud and welding region before the gas reaches the outlet, and also causes the shielding gas to traverse a longer path around the stud prior to discharge, thereby promoting uniform distribution of shielding gas, reducing oxidation of the molten weld pool, and increasing welding quality and process reliability.
Regarding claim 10, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance means the outlet distance is equal to at least half the size of the inlet distance or greater than half the size of the inlet distance. Thus, in this case, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance because Schmitt teaches that the outlet distance is at least the same size as the inlet distance, as cited, explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
DE’923 in view of Schmitt does not explicitly teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter
Regarding the limitation that the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding the outlet distance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches certain dimension of the outlet distance (as cited, explained, and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific dimension of the outlet distance is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the dimension of the outlet distance to be at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would impact the flow path, travel length and time of the protective (inert) gas surround the welding stud. A welding device with an outlet distance that is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would create an optimal circumferential flow path, longer travel length for the protective (inert) gas around the welding stud and welding region before the gas reaches the outlet in order to promote uniform distribution of the protective (inert) gas, reduce oxidation of the molten weld pool, and increase welding quality and process reliability. Thus, the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by making the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 11, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) in order to generate a flow of inert gas (flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3) along the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) radially to the setting axis (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the limitation “the setting axis” above; in this case, the setting axis is interpreted as the longitudinal axis L, see DE’923 Fig.1) when the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) is covered (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”, and see the flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3; therefore, the inert gas inlet is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening in order to generate a flow of inert gas along the opening radially to the setting axis when the opening is covered.).
PNG
media_image2.png
1070
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) in order to generate a flow of inert gas (flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3) along the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) radially to the setting axis (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections for the limitation “the setting axis” above; in this case, the setting axis is interpreted as the longitudinal axis L, see DE’923 Fig.1) when the opening (opening, DE’923 annotated Fig.3 below) is covered (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”, and see the flow of inert gas as shown in DE’923 Fig.3; therefore, the inert gas inlet is directed onto a radially outer region of the opening in order to generate a flow of inert gas along the opening radially to the setting axis when the opening is covered.).
PNG
media_image2.png
1070
1060
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises an inlet opening (opening of the inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) in the form of a ring surrounding the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”).
Regarding claim 14, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises an inlet opening (opening of the inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) in the form of a ring surrounding the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”).
Regarding claim 15, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises an inlet opening (opening of the inert gas inlet space 14, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) in the form of a ring surrounding the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 3 discloses: “the protective gas inlet space 14 designed such that it extends annularly, in particular continuously annularly around the longitudinal axis L around”).
Regarding claim 20, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and DE’923 also discloses:
wherein the inert gas outlet (outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) comprises a multiplicity of outlet openings (openings of outlet openings 16, DE’923 Figs.1, 3) (it is noted that DE’923 show the 16 as channels, see DE’923 Figs.1, 3) arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis (longitudinal axis L, DE’923 Fig.1) (DE’923 Translated Document on page 7 – paragraph 7 discloses: “plurality of corresponding outlet openings 16 formed, in particular uniformly over the circumference of the welding chamber arrangement 5 distributed and preferably within the lower half of the welding chamber arrangement 5”).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nab et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0326675 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nab discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance means the outlet distance is equal to at least half the size of the inlet distance or greater than half the size of the inlet distance. Thus, in this case, Nab teaches the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance because Nab teaches that the outlet distance is greater than the inlet distance, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Nab does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter
Regarding the limitation that the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding the outlet distance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Nab discloses certain dimension of the outlet distance (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific dimension of the outlet distance is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the dimension of the outlet distance to be at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would impact the flow path, travel length and time of the protective (inert) gas surround the welding stud. A welding device with an outlet distance that is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would create an optimal circumferential flow path, longer travel length for the protective (inert) gas around the welding stud and welding region before the gas reaches the outlet in order to promote uniform distribution of the protective (inert) gas, reduce oxidation of the molten weld pool, and increase welding quality and process reliability. Thus, the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nab by making the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 10, Nab discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also teaches:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance (It is noted that the limitation the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance means the outlet distance is equal to at least half the size of the inlet distance or greater than half the size of the inlet distance. Thus, in this case, Nab teaches the outlet distance is at least half the size of the inlet distance because Nab teaches that the outlet distance is greater than the inlet distance, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above.).
Nab does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter
Regarding the limitation that the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see the rejection of claim 1 above regarding the outlet distance), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Nab discloses certain dimension of the outlet distance (as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above), and having a specific dimension of the outlet distance is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the dimension of the outlet distance to be at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would impact the flow path, travel length and time of the protective (inert) gas surround the welding stud. A welding device with an outlet distance that is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter would create an optimal circumferential flow path, longer travel length for the protective (inert) gas around the welding stud and welding region before the gas reaches the outlet in order to promote uniform distribution of the protective (inert) gas, reduce oxidation of the molten weld pool, and increase welding quality and process reliability. Thus, the dimension of the outlet distance is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nab, by making the outlet distance is at least half of the difference between the opening diameter and the outside diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 17, Modified Nab teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, Nab also discloses:
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (welding axis, Nab annotated Fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
888
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 202016100923 U1 (Translation is attached, hereinafter DE’923) in view of Schmitt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0096366 A1), and further in view of Nab et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0326675 A1).
Regarding claim 6, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis.
Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (longitudinal axis of the connection device 10, Nab Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis, as taught by Nab, in order to provide better protective gas coverage, better welding results, cycle time savings since shorter flow times are required, as recognized by Nab [Nab, Par.0026]. The modification distributes protective gas substantially uniformly about the stud, thereby creating a circumferential protective gas curtain, improving displacement of ambient air, reducing oxidation and porosity, and enhancing weld quality.
Regarding claim 16, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis.
Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (longitudinal axis of the connection device 10, Nab Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis, as taught by Nab, in order to provide better protective gas coverage, better welding results, cycle time savings since shorter flow times are required, as recognized by Nab [Nab, Par.0026]. The modification distributes protective gas substantially uniformly about the stud, thereby creating a circumferential protective gas curtain, improving displacement of ambient air, reducing oxidation and porosity, and enhancing weld quality.
Regarding claim 17, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis.
Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (longitudinal axis of the connection device 10, Nab Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis, as taught by Nab, in order to provide better protective gas coverage, better welding results, cycle time savings since shorter flow times are required, as recognized by Nab [Nab, Par.0026]. The modification distributes protective gas substantially uniformly about the stud, thereby creating a circumferential protective gas curtain, improving displacement of ambient air, reducing oxidation and porosity, and enhancing weld quality.
Regarding claim 18, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis.
Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (longitudinal axis of the connection device 10, Nab Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis, as taught by Nab, in order to provide better protective gas coverage, better welding results, cycle time savings since shorter flow times are required, as recognized by Nab [Nab, Par.0026]. The modification distributes protective gas substantially uniformly about the stud, thereby creating a circumferential protective gas curtain, improving displacement of ambient air, reducing oxidation and porosity, and enhancing weld quality.
Regarding claim 19, DE’923 in view of Schmitt teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 5, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis.
Nab teaches a welding device (connection device 10, Nab Figs.1-3) for welding a welding stud (connection element 12, Nab Fig.1) to a substrate (workpiece 14, Nab Fig.1):
wherein the inert gas inlet (inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c, Nab Fig.3) comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings (openings of inlets of supply channels 40a, 40b, 40c as shown in Nab Fig.3) arranged in the form of a ring (as shown in Nab Fig.3) around the welding axis (longitudinal axis of the connection device 10, Nab Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DE’923 in view of Schmitt, by adding the teachings of the inert gas inlet comprises a multiplicity of inlet openings arranged in the form of a ring around the welding axis, as taught by Nab, in order to provide better protective gas coverage, better welding results, cycle time savings since shorter flow times are required, as recognized by Nab [Nab, Par.0026]. The modification distributes protective gas substantially uniformly about the stud, thereby creating a circumferential protective gas curtain, improving displacement of ambient air, reducing oxidation and porosity, and enhancing weld quality.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Krengel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,762,392 B1) discloses a lift-and-strike welding process as well as to a lift-and-strike welding apparatus. The process and the apparatus are suitable in particular for welding a weld stud onto an aluminium surface or steel sheet surface, which have in each case a surface coating. During the welding operation an inert gas, e.g. argon, flows around the stud.
Hoellinger (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0117496 A1) discloses arc welding a sleeve to a workpiece comprising a sleeve holder is surrounded by a field-former unit which contains a magnet coil, a magnetic flux return member and a field former. A magnetic field is generated with a field component extending radially to the sleeve within the welding gap to set the arc in rotation.
Liebold et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,338,740 B2) discloses a nozzle for a plasma torch including a body that has an inner surface, an outer surface, a proximal end, and an exit orifice at a distal end. The nozzle includes at least one vent passage formed in the body. The vent passage has an inlet formed in the inner surface of the body and an outlet formed in the outer surface of the body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 06/18/2026
Prosecution Insights