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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 6/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes of claim interpretation:
The preamble is considered limiting to the structure of the invention (MPEP 2111.02).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammar et al. (US 10857677, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 1,
A robotic welding tool tip (108/108-1/108-2, Figs. 1-11) for programming, the tool tip comprising a body having a first end (ex. “top” end as seen in Figs. 1-11, example annotation below) configured to be connected to a robotic welding torch in place of a nozzle and a second end having an angled surface (117 (117-1, 117-2) or 116).
PNG
media_image1.png
642
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
The robotic welding tool tip as defined in claim 1, wherein the first end of the body comprises a bore having an inner diameter configured to be coupled to a gas diffuser of the robotic welding torch (ex. Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 3,
The robotic welding tool tip as defined in claim 2, wherein a diameter and a length of the bore are sized to fit over the gas diffuser (ex. Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4,
The robotic welding tool tip as defined in claim 1, wherein a length of the body corresponds to a predetermined wire stickout length during operation of the robotic welding torch (ex. Figs. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 5,
The robotic welding tool tip as defined in claim 1, wherein the body comprises an electrically insulating material (Col. 4, lines 38-43)
Regarding Claim 7,
The robotic welding tool tip as defined in claim 1, wherein the angled surface forms an angle between 30-45 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body (ex. Col. 5, line 57-Col. 6, line 5, Col. 6, lines 45-53).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammar in view of Parker (US 20220184727).
Regarding Claim 6, Hammar teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the electrically insulating material comprises a phenolic material.
Hammar generically discloses “In some implementations, tip attachment 108 can be formed from a plastic material (e.g., a 3D-printable plastic), a metallic material, a glass material, an organic material, and/or another type of material.” (Col. 4, lines 38-43) but does not specifically teach “a phenolic material”.
Parker teaches
For a welding torch,
Using a phenolic material ([0018, 0026 0049, 0054].
Since both pieces of prior art are related to welding devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a phenolic material as claimed in order to provide an appropriate material that would be suitable for the intended use.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammar in view of JP S61-22272, hereinafter JP272.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Hammar teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the angled surface comprises a first portion at a tip of the second end and a second portion immediately adjacent the first portion toward the first end, the first portion forming a first angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body and the second portion forming a second angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body, the first angle being greater than the second angle,
wherein the first angle is between 40-45 degrees, and the second angle is between 30-40 degrees.
Hammar discusses using different angles for body 110 of the tip 108 (ex. Col. 3, line 59-Col. 4, line 7, Col. 5, line 57-Col. 6, lines 13) but does not use the specified claim language.
JP272 teaches
For a welding tip,
wherein the angled surface (ex. Fig. 3) comprises a first portion (3’) at a tip of the second end and a second portion (3) immediately adjacent the first portion toward the first end, the first portion forming a first angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body and the second portion forming a second angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the body, the first angle being greater than the second angle (Fig. 3),
wherein the first angle is between 40-45 degrees (“It is more preferred from points, such as intensity of the wire adhesion prevention effect top and a torch tip part, and endurance, that especially a tip part (t2) sets up for Apex angle (theta) of a tip part cone to be in 30 degrees 90 degrees”), and the second angle is between 30-40 degrees (“And/or, among those, when [ that the angle which the external surface makes is in 20 degrees at the range of 60 degrees”).
Since both references are directed to welding tips, 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 tip of Hammar to use two angled surfaces as taught by JP272 in order to provide a programmable tip of duplicate geometry of a usable weld tip, thereby allowing accurate simulation of a tip in the form of the JP272 tip.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammar in view of design choice.
Regarding Claim 10, Hammar teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein a longitudinal length of the first portion is between 0.2 inches and 0.5 inches.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the longitudinal length with the specific length solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the first portion would be of some length and it appears that the first portion of Hammar would perform equally well with a length of dimensions as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the first portion of Hammar by utilizing the specific dimensions as claimed for the purpose of an appropriately sized tool tip for an environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention related to welding tool tips.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights