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 filed 9/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the reply, applicant argues, Albrecht does not teach “waking up the welding power supply from the sleep mode.” The references are combined to show why it would have been obvious to have a welding power supply enter a sleep mode and wake up upon the receipt of a signal. The welding type device 66, which would have a welding power supply, goes to sleep as in paragraph [0057]. Also, in paragraph [0041] the device 24, which contains a power supply 46, also goes to sleep and wakes up when a wireless signal is received. The reason for entering sleep mode is for power savings. The question becomes, would it have been obvious for a welding power supply to enter a sleep mode and then be woken up from a wireless control signal. The reason for the combination is to show why a person having ordinary skill in the are would put a device into sleep mode and wake it up with a wireless signal. The device being claimed does not need to be explicitly disclosed to show it would have been obvious. The prior art shows why one having ordinary skill in the art would wake up the welding power supply from the sleep mode. The sleep mode is entered in order for power savings and the device would be woken up when a response or action by the device is required.
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) 2-3, 5-6, 9-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappl et al (US 2011/0073569) in view of Luck et al (US 2008/0116186) and Albrecht et al (US 2007/0080150).
Regarding claim 2, 9, Rappl discloses a welding power supply (power supply 12) comprising: a housing comprising a control panel configured to receive inputs from an operator (user interface 26 located on the power supply See Paragraph [0030]); power conversion circuitry (power conversion circuitry 16, Fig 3 shows it disposed within the housing) and configured to convert input power into welding power (16 coverts the input into a welding power, See Paragraphs [0028], [0029]; and a controller disposed within the housing and configured to (Control circuitry is provided that may be located in the power supply, the pendant, or both, See Paragraph [0026]) However, Luck discloses a portable remote device 50 for controlling a power supply of a welding device via wireless signals. (See Paragraphs [0001]-[0006]) The reason for obviousness is specifically limited to the transmission of control signals. The Rappl reference is not being relied upon for power transmission to the remote device. It would have been obvious to adapt Rappl in view of Luck to provide the wireless control signal transmission as this would eliminate the problems associated with electrical noise in a wired connection. Rappl fails to disclose a sleep mode and receiving a signal to wake the device up. Albrecht discloses a wireless welding device which goes into a sleep mode and wakes up upon the receipt of a signal which necessitates a response or action. (See Paragraph [0041]) It would have been obvious to adapt Luck in view of Albrecht to provide the sleep mode for power savings. Luck appears to disclose a tablet like computer but fails to specifically disclose a tablet, phone or computer as the portable device. Albrecht discloses the portable monitoring device being a hand held device which would include a cell phone and tablet or a laptop. (See Paragraph [0051]) It would have been obvious to adapt Luck to provide the phone, tablet or laptop as these are obvious variants known in the art to be used with a wireless welding device. Regarding claim 3, the power supply would comprise an engine/generator set, a battery, or a combination thereof. (See Paragraph [0041])
Rappl discloses, regarding claim 5-6, Fig 7 shows a portable electronic device 48 comprising a display. Albrecht discloses the portable monitoring device being a hand held device which would include a cell phone and tablet or a laptop. (See Paragraph [0051]) It would have been obvious to adapt Luck to provide the phone, tablet or laptop as these are obvious variants known in the art to be used with a wireless welding device. The welding device could be configured to transmit any type of data the user desires. Configuring the circuitry to send diagnostic messages or code is trivial and would be based on the desired application or intended use of the device.
Regarding claims 10-12, 16 the portable device 48 is capable of changing voltage, amperage, arc length and other welding control parameters via a control signal. (See Paragraph [0046]) The wireless aspect is discussed above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappl et al (US 2011/0073569) in view of Luck et al (US 2008/0116186), Albrecht et al (US 2007/0080150) and Mehn et al (US 2011/0220616).
The teachings of Rappl have been discussed above. Rappl fails to disclose, regarding claim 4, set prioritization of control of the welding power supply between the portable electronic device and the control panel of the welding power supply, to prevent the control panel from controlling at least one parameter of the welding power supply when the portable electronic device is prioritized.
Mehn discloses a power supply 12 having a control panel 14 and a portable electronic device on the torch having an interface 17. The device is configured such that when the operator is controlling the welding operation via interface module 17, the control panel 14 is disabled, and when the operator controls the welding operation via control panel 14, the interface 17 is disabled. In such embodiments, the welding system 10 may be configured to lockout the control panel that is not in use such that only one control panel is active at any given time. (See Paragraph [0018])
It would have been obvious to adapt Rappl in further view of Mehn to provide the prioritization of control of the welding power supply between the portable electronic device and the control panel of the welding power supply, to prevent the control panel from controlling at least one parameter of the welding power supply when the portable electronic device is prioritized to reduce the likelihood of an operator having to return to the welding power supply to change a weld parameter or setting, and to prevent an inadvertent change to a parameter or setting while the device is in use.
Claim(s) 7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappl et al (US 2011/0073569) in view of Luck et al (US 2008/0116186), Albrecht et al (US 2007/0080150) and Dantinne et al (US 2009/0152251).
The teachings of Rappl have been discussed above. Rappl fails to disclose, the portable electronic device comprises a display, and the local control circuitry is configured to wirelessly send instructions to the remote control circuitry to display a nested graphical hierarchical structure of operating parameters and statuses of the welding power supply via the display.
Dantinne discloses, an exemplary profile hierarchy 112 that may be associated with the profile selectors 36 and 90 of the exemplary interfaces 26 and 32 illustrated in FIGS. 2-4. The illustrated embodiments include only four profiles, although an unlimited number of profiles may be utilized. In the illustrated embodiments, a user may select a user/process profile 114 by selecting one of the profile selectors 36 (FIG. 2 or 3) or depressing the profile selection button 90 (FIG. 4) until the desired profile number is selected. The first time the profile 114 is selected, default welding parameters are automatically recalled. For example, the default settings for profile one may be a stick welding process utilizing an E6010 electrode at 85 amps. The user may change the settings for the stick welding process or select a different process. In this example, any changes made while profile one is selected are saved such that they may be recalled at a later time. A different user/process profile 114 may be selected, and upon returning to profile one the last utilized process and settings will automatically be recalled. In addition, changes to any other processes within profile one may be recalled by selecting the desired process. (See Paragraphs [0027], [0041]) Regarding claim 13, several processes may be stored and added, including both stick welding parameters and TIG welding parameters. Parameters for additional processes may be stored in each profile and accessed via additional buttons. For example, a TIG button 48 may initiate the TIG welding process. As described above, selection of the TIG button 48 may light up the "TIG" label or the button 48. Parameters for both stick welding and TIG welding may be stored in a given profile and recalled upon depression of the stick button 40 or the TIG button 48, depending on the desired process. (See Paragraph [0020])
It would have been obvious to adapt Rappl in view of Dantinne to provide the portable electronic device comprises a display, and the local control circuitry is configured to wirelessly send instructions to the remote control circuitry to display a nested graphical hierarchical structure of operating parameters and statuses of the welding power supply via the display, and to add advanced welding process functionality to the welding power supply, and to add the advanced welding process functionality based on the received control signal. for providing a logically based menu for providing the user with the correct parameters to select for the type of welding process selected. The type of control signal is arbitrary. The devices in the cited prior art may be configured to provide any type of parameters or control data for the desired application or intended use. The type of signal being claimed is not a structural limitation and or functional limitation.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappl et al (US 2011/0073569) in view of Luck et al (US 2008/0116186), Albrecht et al (US 2007/0080150) and Hillen et al (US 7,643,890).
The teachings of Rappl have been discussed above. Rappl fails to disclose, bi-directional communication of information relating to a preset value for a parameter of the welding power supply, wherein the bi-directional communication includes only digital communication.
Hillen discloses a welding device which would have a power supply 102 in bi-directional digital communication with a portable electronic device 104. (See Claim 1 and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to adapt Rappl in further view of Hillen to provide bi-directional communication of information relating to a preset value for a parameter of the welding power supply, wherein the bi-directional communication includes only digital communication as this is an obvious variant for communicating between two electronic devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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