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 § 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the support structure" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tonita (US 4160151) . Regarding claim 1, Tonita discloses A system for dispensing welding wire comprising: a de-reeling arm (Figure 2, item 42) to rotate about a wire spool (32) ; a roller (54, 60, or 20 all show rollers) to direct the welding wire into a wire liner (58, 64, and 16 all show wire liners) ; and a conduit connected to the de-reeling arm (Figure 1, item 46 shows a conduit that is connected to the arm through 48) and configured to channel the welding wire from the wire spool to the roller as the welding wire is unwound from the wire spool (Figure 1 shows 46 directing the wire from the spool to the roller) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonita (US 4160151). Regarding claim 9, Tonita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection along with using a metallic wire. However, Tonita does not explicitly disclose the welding wire spool being a 16 or 22 pound spool of wire. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a 16 or 22 pound spool of wire since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art, o ne would have been motivated to scale the size of the wire spool to be 16-22 lbs in order to fit a specific spool size in inventory, make the system more portable, or allow for replacement of the spool without lifting assistance. Claim(s) 1 0 -14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonita (US 4160151) in view of Diekmann (US 20060207981) . Regarding claim 10, Tonita discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Tonita does not explicitly disclose that the wire liner is connected to a spool gun type welding torch . Tonita and Diekmann are analogous prior art because both describe welding wire feeders and welding systems. Diekmann teaches a spool gun type welding torch (Figure 5, item 300) that includes a wire feeder feed drive 310 as is described in paragraph 0056 along with a control trigger (Par. 0056) that allows for specific control of the welding feeder. Diekmann Figure 5 shows that the welding torch with the wire feeder can be used with a separate spool 410 meaning that the torch with the wire feeder feed drive and the trigger would provide predictable results as the torch of Tonita. Diekmann further describes that the feed system allows for the gun to push wire a short distance and allows for the use of a less rigid wire (Par. 0056) along with the trigger allowing for specific control of the wire feeding through the welding gun (Par. 0062). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spool gun of Diekmann as the welding gun of Tonita because the feed system allows for the gun to push wire a short distance and allows for the use of a less rigid wire (Par. 0056) along with the trigger allowing for specific control of the wire feeding through the welding gun (Par. 0062) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 11, Tonita in view of Diekmann teaches that the welding wire is advanced by a wire feeder incorporated with the spool gun ( Diekmann item 310 shows a feed drive in the spool gun which provides a wire feeder). Regarding claim 1 2 , Tonita discloses A system for dispensing welding wire comprising: a welding wire dispensing device comprising: a de-reeling arm ( Figure 2, item 42 ) to rotate about the wire spool (32) ; a roller (54, 60, or 20 all show rollers) to direct the welding wire into a wire liner (58, 64, and 16 all show wire liners) ; and a conduit connected to the de-reeling arm ( Figure 1, item 46 shows a conduit that is connected to the arm through 48 ) and configured to channel the welding wire from the wire spool to the roller as the welding wire is unwound from the wire spool as the welding wire advances through the wire feeder ( Figure 1 shows 46 directing the wire from the spool to the roller ) . However, Tonita does not explicitly disclose a spool gun type welding torch that includes a wire feeder . Tonita and Diekmann are analogous prior art because both describe welding wire feeders and welding systems. Diekmann teaches a spool gun type welding torch (Figure 5, item 300) that includes a wire feeder feed drive 310 as is described in paragraph 0056 along with a control trigger (Par. 0056) that allows for specific control of the welding feeder. Diekmann Figure 5 shows that the welding torch with the wire feeder can be used with a separate spool 410 meaning that the torch with the wire feeder feed drive and the trigger would provide predictable results as the torch of Tonita. Diekmann further describes that the feed system allows for the gun to push wire a short distance and allows for the use of a less rigid wire (Par. 0056) along with the trigger allowing for specific control of the wire feeding through the welding gun (Par. 0062). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spool gun of Diekmann as the welding gun of Tonita because the feed system allows for the gun to push wire a short distance and allows for the use of a less rigid wire (Par. 0056) along with the trigger allowing for specific control of the wire feeding through the welding gun (Par. 0062) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Regarding claim 13, Tonita in view of Diekmann teaches that the wire feeder includes one or more drive rolls to drive the welding wire in response to a user operated trigger ( Diekmann Paragraph 0063 describes the trigger controls the wire feeder and the gun has rollers as shown in Figure 10 and described in paragraph 0059). Regarding claim 14, Tonita in view of Diekmann teaches that rotation of the de-reeling arm is driven by the welding wire advancing through the wire feeder (Tonita column 4, lines 31-69 and column 5, lines 1-2 describes the arm being reactive to the wire being pulled by the drive means). Regarding claim 19 , Tonita discloses the limitations of claim 1 2 as set forth in the above 10 3 rejection along with using a metallic wire. However, Tonita in view of Diekmann does not explicitly teach the welding wire spool being a 16 or 22 pound spool of wire. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a 16 or 22 pound spool of wire since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art, One would have been motivated to scale the size of the wire spool to be 16-22 lbs in order to fit a specific spool size in inventory, make the system more portable, or allow for replacement of the spool without lifting assistance. Regarding claim 20, Tonita in view of Diekmann teaches a welding power supply to provide one or more of power or shielding gas to the torch via one or more cables (Tonita Column 5, lines 34-48 describes that the torch is energized, meaning that power is provided to the torch via cables). Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tonita (US 4160151) in view of Diekmann (US 20060207981) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brown (US 20210370431) . Regarding claim 18, Tonita in view of Diekmann teaches the limitations of claim 12 as set forth in the above 103 rejection and that the support structure further comprises a base to support the wire spool (Tonita Fig. 1, item 38). However, Tonita in view of Diekmann does not explicitly teach a plurality of wheels to support the base . Tonita in view of Diekmann and Brown are analogous prior art because both describe welding spool systems. Brown teaches providing wheels on the bottom of the entire system (Par. 0053, items 64 and 66) that allow for the entire system to be portable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the platforms and wheels of Brown to the welding system of Tonita in view of Diekmann because they allow the whole system to be portable (Par. 0001) and moved to different locations for welding. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 and 15-17 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claims 2 and 15, while Tomita shows a structure (Figure 1, item 50) that could be considered the shaft because it extends between the conduit and the roller and the shaft shares an axis with the roller, the shaft is not shown to rotate around any axis and in fact is fixed by item 52. Further, there is no clear reason why allowing rotation of the shaft of Tomita might provide any advantage to the system or be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as the structure of Tomita is simply providing a static guide tube for the wire to pass through. No other prior art was found that provided a tube or shaft in a similar structure that allowed or chose to have the tube capable of rotating. Claims 3-8 and 16-17 are listed as allowable due to being dependent from claims 2 and 15. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. Each of the cited pieces of prior art not relied upon show various systems for de-spooling wire spools, directing the wire, and controlling the feed of the wire through the handle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9164 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nathan Wiehe can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745