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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 24 July 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s timely filing of a terminal disclaimer has overcome the double patenting rejection. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome most of the Claim objections. However, a Claim objection and a Specification objection still remain. An objection to the Abstract has also been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have resulted in additional interpretations of the claim language invoking 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 4 August 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 21, 26, 32, and 34 have been amended.
Claims 21-37 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 July 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,889,913 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 22, 29, and 35 lack antecedent in the Specification. It appears that the Specification for the Instant Application is missing several paragraphs that were present in the Specification for Application 16/962,902. At least two of the paragraphs (0024 and 0026) that were deleted from the original Specification provide antecedent for the current claim limitations in the Instant Application that are under review. At a minimum, recommend incorporating these missing paragraphs in the Specification in the Instant Application.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “Some examples of the present disclosure relate to…” Recommend deleting this phrase from the first sentence of the abstract and using “has” instead of “may have.” Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26, recommend reciting: “…where the cover cap uncovers…” (line 11).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the following:
In claim 21, the generic placeholder “cap holder” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The functional limitation attributed the cap holder is “configured to engage the cover cap …. so as to secure the cover cap.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “groove” and “shoulder knuckle” (para 0029 of the Specification).
In claim 22, the generic placeholder “second cap holder” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The functional limitation attributed the second cap holder is “configured to engage the cover cap.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “groove” and “shoulder knuckle” (para 0029 of the Specification).
In claim 23, the generic placeholder “cap closer” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The functional limitation attributed the second cap holder is “configured to engage the cover cap.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “catch” (para 0036 of the Specification).
In claims 21, 26, and 32, the generic placeholder “securing element” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The functional limitations attributed the element is “securing” and “configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.”
Structure used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “latch” (para 0036 of the Specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 21-23, 24-27, 30-33 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue et al. (US-20060219683-A1) in view of Ueyama (US-20100149764-A1) and Brietbach et al. (US-20080011729-A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kensrue teaches a welding torch handle (handle 12, fig. 2), comprising:
a housing (housing halves 20a and 20b, fig. 4) having an access port (opening 112, fig. 4) and a cap holder (the last knuckle that hinge 117 inserts into, identified as the right mounting site 54 in fig. 4); and
a cover cap (door 116, fig. 4) configured to move between:
a closed position, where the cover cap covers the access port (“A door 116 is preferably covers the opening 112,” para 0040; construed a closed position when the door covers the opening).
Kensrue, fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
1401
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose a cap holder (the cap holder is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as being a knuckle and a groove; Kensrue teaches a knuckle but does not explicitly disclose a groove); a protruding tongue; a first open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port and is secured by the cap holder to create a first opening, and a second open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port and is secured at the second open position to create a second opening, wherein the cap holder is configured to engage the cover cap when the cover cap is in the first open position so as to secure the cover cap in the first open position, wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the housing when the cover cap is in the second open position so as to retain the cover cap in the second open position and wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches a cap holder (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5; “The cam plate 55 is provided with concave parts 55 c between the cams 55 b,” para 0205; the concave parts 55c are construed as the grooves); a protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5); a first open position, where the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) uncovers the access port and is secured by the cap holder (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5; “the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set to 160° or at every 80°,” para 0206; the meshing of the cams at 80 degrees is construed as “securing”) to create a first opening (figs. 11A and 11B; “opened to 80°,” para 0220), and a second open position (figs. 12A and 12B), where the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) uncovers the access port and is secured at the second open position (“the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set to 160° or at every 80°,” para 0206,” para 0206; the meshing of the cams at 160 degrees is construed as “securing”) to create a second opening (“opened to 160°,” para 0220), wherein the cap holder (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5) is configured to engage the cover cap when the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) is in the first open position so as to secure the cover cap in the first open position (figs. 11A and 11B; secured at 80 degrees through the cams between part 42a and member 30, para 0206), and wherein the protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5) is configured to engage the housing when the cover cap is in the second open position so as to retain the cover cap in the second open position (figs. 12A and 12B; secured at 160 degrees through the cams between part 42a and the cams 34b of member 30, para 0206).
Ueyama, fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
1150
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, a cap holder; a protruding tongue; a first open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port and is secured by the cap holder to create a first opening, and a second open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port and is secured at the second open position to create a second opening, wherein the cap holder is configured to engage the cover cap when the cover cap is in the first open position so as to secure the cover cap in the first open position, and wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the housing when the cover cap is in the second open position so as to retain the cover cap in the second open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 35b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and in the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that facilitates a stable folding action at the open state, at the closed state, and at the midpoint between the open state and closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the hinge 117 of Kensrue would be modified with cams 35b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Kensrue is silent as to the use of cam mechanisms in hinge 117, Ueyama simply serves to demonstrate that such a hinge would have been used in a routine manner in the invention of Kensrue.
Kensrue/ Ueyama do not explicitly disclose wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Brietbach teaches wherein the cover cap (cover 62, fig. 5) further comprises a securing element (latch 68, fig. 6) configured to engage a corresponding feature (mating portion 81, fig. 6) in the housing (compartmental configuration 70, fig. 6) to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position (position shown in fig. 5; para 0030).
Brietbach, figs. 5-6
PNG
media_image3.png
286
644
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
382
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue, in view of the teachings of Brietbach, by using a latch 68, as taught by Brietbach, on the door 116, as taught by Kensrue, and by using a mating portion 81, as taught by Brietbach, where the door 16 connects with the handle portion 12, as taught by Kensrue, in order to use a latch with a snap-fit mechanism, for the advantage of ensuring the interior wire feeder remains clean by using a latch to keep the door closed and secured to the handle in the event that the handle is turned over during welding (Brietbach, para 0021).
Regarding claim 22, Kensrue teaches wherein the housing (housing halves 20a and 20b, fig. 4) further includes a second cap holder (the initial knuckle that hinge 117 inserts into, fig. 4) configured to engage the cover cap (door 116, fig. 4).
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose a second cap holder configured to engage the cover cap when the cover cap is in the second open position (the cap holder is interpreted under 35 USC 112f as being a knuckle and a groove; Kensrue teaches a knuckle but does not explicitly disclose a groove).
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches a second cap holder (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5; “The cam plate 55 is provided with concave parts 55 c between the cams 55 b,” para 0205; the concave parts 55c are construed as the grooves) configured to engage the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) when the cover cap is in the second open position (figs. 12A and 12B; secured at 160 degrees through the cams between part 42a and the cams 34b of member 30, para 0206)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, a second cap holder configured to engage the cover cap when the cover cap is in the second open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 35b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in both of the knuckles through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a reinforced hinge mechanism that enables a more stable folding action at the open state, at the closed state, and at the midpoint between the open state and closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Kensrue in view of Ueyama and Brietbach as set forth above regarding claim 21 teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Brietbach teaches wherein the housing (compartmental configuration 70, fig. 6) further includes a cap closer (mating portion 81, fig. 6; construed as a catch) configured to engage the cover cap (cover 62, fig. 5) when the cover cap is in the closed position (position shown in fig. 5; para 0030).
Regarding claim 24, Kensrue teaches wherein the housing (housing halves 20a and 20b, fig. 4) contains welding components that may be accessed through the access port (“This housing 20 has an opening 112 to provide access to the feeder and idler rollers 72,” para 0040) when the cover cap is in the first open position and the second open position (“A door 116 is preferably covers the opening 112,” para 0040; the door is construed as providing access when it is opened).
Regarding claim 25, Kensrue teaches wherein the welding components comprise one or more of a drive roll (feeder roller 70, fig. 4; para 0040), an idler roll (idler roller 72, fig. 4; para 0040), and a tension lever (lever 74, fig 4; para 0048).
Regarding claim 26, Kensrue teaches a welding torch (welding gun 10, fig. 2), comprising:
a handle (handle 12, fig. 2), wherein the handle comprises:
a housing (housing halves 20a and 20b, fig. 4) having an access port (opening 112, fig. 4) and a shoulder knuckle (the last knuckle that hinge 117 inserts into, located the right mounting site 54 in fig. 4), wherein the shoulder knuckle comprises a bore (hole inside the right mounting site 54, fig. 4) having a bore axis (axis of hinge 117, fig. 4);
a cover cap (door 116, fig. 4) comprising a cap knuckle (top portion of door 116 through which hinge 117 inserts, fig. 4) having a cap bore (hole in door 116 through which hinge 117 inserts, fig. 4); and
a bolt (hinge 117, fig 4) extending through the bore (hole inside the right mounting site 54, fig. 4) of the shoulder knuckle (hole inside the right mounting site 54, fig. 4)) and the cap bore (hole in door 116 through which hinge 117 inserts, fig. 4),
wherein the cover cap is configured to rotate about the bore axis (door 116 rotates about hinge 117, fig. 4) between a closed position, where the cover cap covers the access port (position of the door 116 in fig. 2) and wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose a grooved notch; a protruding tongue configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle, and an open position, where cover cap uncovers the access port, and wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches a grooved notch (concave parts 55c, para 0205); a protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5) configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle (concave parts 55c of part 42, fig. 5 and para 0205), and an open position (figs. 11A and 11B), where cover cap uncovers the access port (“opened to 80°,” para 0220), and wherein the protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5) is configured to engage the grooved notch (concave parts 55c, para 0205) when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position (“the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set to 160° or at every 80°,” para 0206,” para 0206; the meshing of the cams at 80 degrees between concave parts 55c and cams 34b is construed as “securing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, a grooved notch; a protruding tongue configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle, and an open position, where cover cap uncovers the access port, and wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 34b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that enables a stable folding action at the open state and at the closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the hinge 117 of Kensrue could be modified to include the cams 34b and 55b of Ueyama, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Kensrue is silent as to the use of cam mechanisms in hinge 117, Ueyama simply serves to demonstrate that such a hinge would have been used in a routine manner in the invention of Kensrue.
Kensrue/ Ueyama do not explicitly disclose wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Brietbach teaches wherein the cover cap (cover 62, fig. 5) further comprises a securing element (latch 68, fig. 6) configured to engage a corresponding feature (mating portion 81, fig. 6) in the housing (compartmental configuration 70, fig. 6) to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position (position shown in fig. 5; para 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue, in view of the teachings of Brietbach, by using a latch 68, as taught by Brietbach, on the door 116, as taught by Kensrue, and by using a mating portion 81, as taught by Brietbach, where the door 16 connects with the handle portion 12, as taught by Kensrue, in order to use a latch with a snap-fit mechanism, for the advantage of ensuring the interior wire feeder remains clean by using a latch to keep the door closed and secured to the handle in the event that the handle is turned over during welding (Brietbach, para 0021).
Regarding claim 27, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the shoulder knuckle comprises a second grooved notch, the cover cap comprises a second protruding tongue, and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches wherein the shoulder knuckle (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5) comprises a second grooved notch (“The cam plate 55 is provided with concave parts 55 c between the cams 55 b so as to mesh with the cams 34 b of the first joining part 34,” para 0205; fig. 5 shows three cams 34b; construed such that there are three concave parts 55c or grooved notches), the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) comprises a second protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5; three cams 34b are shown in fig. 5; construed as three protruding tongues), and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch (“the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set … at every 80°,” para 0206) when the cover cap is in the open position (figs. 11A and 11B; para 0220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the shoulder knuckle comprises a second grooved notch, the cover cap comprises a second protruding tongue, and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 34b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that enables a stable folding action at the open state and at the closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
Regarding claim 30, Kensrue teaches further comprising a cover plate (block 22, fig. 7) that covers a portion of the access port when the cover cap is in the open and closed positions (block 22 is directly under the door and covers a portion of the opening, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover cap is further configured to rotate about the bolt between the open position, a second open position, and the closed position, and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches wherein the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) is further configured to rotate (“rotation,” para 0194) about the bolt (attachment shaft 73, fig. 5 and actuation stick 67, fig. 6 ) between the open position (figs. 11A and 11B; “opened to 80°,” para 0220), a second open position (figs. 12A and 12B), and the closed position (figs. 10A and 10B), and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening (figs. 11A and 11B; secured at 80 degrees through the cams between part 42a and member 30, para 0206) and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening (figs. 12A and 12B; secured at 160 degrees through the cams between part 42a and the cams 34b of member 30, para 0206; 160 degrees is larger than 80 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the cover cap is further configured to rotate about the bolt between the open position, a second open position, and the closed position, and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 35b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and in the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that facilitates a stable folding action at the open state, at the closed state, and at the midpoint between the open state and closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
Regarding claim 32, Kensrue teaches a welding torch (welding gun 10, fig. 2), comprising:
a handle (handle 12, fig. 2), wherein the handle comprises:
a housing (housing halves 20a and 20b, fig. 4) having an access port (opening 112, fig. 4) and a knuckle (the last knuckle that hinge 117 inserts into, located the right mounting site 54 in fig. 4), wherein the shoulder knuckle comprises a bore (hole inside the right mounting site 54, fig. 4);
a cover cap (door 116, fig. 4) connected to the handle via a joint (hinge 117, fig 4) and comprising a cap knuckle (top portion of door 116 through which hinge 117 inserts, fig. 4) having a cap bore (hole in door 116 through which hinge 117 inserts, fig. 4),
wherein the cover cap is configured to rotate about the bore axis (door 116 rotates about hinge 117, fig. 4) between a closed position, where the cover cap covers the access port (position of the door 116 in fig. 2).
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose a grooved notch; a protruding tongue configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle, and an open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port, and wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position and wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches a grooved notch (concave parts 55c, para 0205); a protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5) configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle (concave parts 55c of part 42, fig. 5 and para 0205), and an open position (figs. 11A and 11B), where the cover cap uncovers the access port (“opened to 80°,” para 0220), and wherein the protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5) is configured to engage the grooved notch (concave parts 55c, para 0205) when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position (“the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set to 160° or at every 80°,” para 0206,” para 0206; the meshing of the cams at 80 degrees between concave parts 55c and cams 34b is construed as “securing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, a grooved notch; a protruding tongue configured to engage the grooved notch of the shoulder knuckle, and an open position, where the cover cap uncovers the access port, and wherein the protruding tongue is configured to engage the grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position so as to retain the cover cap in the open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 34b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that enables a stable folding action at the open state and at the closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the hinge 117 of Kensrue could be modified to include the cams 34b and 55b of Ueyama, as this is a routine expedient in the art. Though Kensrue is silent as to the use of cam mechanisms in hinge 117, Ueyama simply serves to demonstrate that such a hinge would have been used in a routine manner in the invention of Kensrue.
Kensrue/ Ueyama do not explicitly disclose wherein the cover cap further comprises a securing element configured to engage a corresponding feature in the housing to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Brietbach teaches wherein the cover cap (cover 62, fig. 5) further comprises a securing element (latch 68, fig. 6) configured to engage a corresponding feature (mating portion 81, fig. 6) in the housing (compartmental configuration 70, fig. 6) to secure the cover cap in place when in the closed position (position shown in fig. 5; para 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue, in view of the teachings of Brietbach, by using a latch 68, as taught by Brietbach, on the door 116, as taught by Kensrue, and by using a mating portion 81, as taught by Brietbach, where the door 16 connects with the handle portion 12, as taught by Kensrue, in order to use a latch with a snap-fit mechanism, for the advantage of ensuring the interior wire feeder remains clean by using a latch to keep the door closed and secured to the handle in the event that the handle is turned over during welding (Brietbach, para 0021).
Regarding claim 33, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the knuckle comprises a second grooved notch, the cover cap comprises a second protruding tongue, and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches wherein the knuckle (part 42a, frame 41, fig. 5) comprises a second grooved notch (“The cam plate 55 is provided with concave parts 55 c between the cams 55 b so as to mesh with the cams 34 b of the first joining part 34,” para 0205; fig. 5 shows three cams 34b; construed such that there are three concave parts 55c or grooved notches), the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) comprises a second protruding tongue (cams 34b, fig. 5; three cams 34b are shown in fig. 5; construed as three protruding tongues), and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch (“the cams mesh when the intervals between the cams are set … at every 80°,” para 0206) when the cover cap is in the open position (figs. 11A and 11B; para 0220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the knuckle comprises a second grooved notch, the cover cap comprises a second protruding tongue, and the second protruding tongue is configured to engage the second grooved notch when the cover cap is in the open position, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 34b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that enables a stable folding action at the open state and at the closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
Regarding claim 37, Kensrue teaches further comprising a cover plate (block 22, fig. 7) that covers a portion of the access port when the cover cap is in the open and closed positions (block 22 is directly under the door and covers a portion of the opening, fig. 3).
Claims 28-29 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue et al. (US-20060219683-A1) in view of Ueyama (US-20100149764-A1) and Brietbach et al. (US-20080011729-A1) as applied to claims 26 and 32 above and further in view of Rehrig (US-6534747-B1).
Regarding claim 28, Kensrue teaches the bolt comprises complementary threads (hinge 117 has threads at the end of the bolt, fig. 4), and the insert (right mounting site 54, fig. 4) is configured to engage complementary threads of the bolt (“attached to the housing by a hinge 117,” para 0040; “a series of mounting sites 54 along their edges which allows the housing to be screwed together by screws,” para 0040).
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose further comprising an insert positioned within the bore of the shoulder knuckle, wherein the insert comprises threads.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Rehrig teaches further comprising an insert (metal collar 20, fig. 1) positioned within the bore of the shoulder knuckle (bore of torch handle 16, fig. 1), wherein the insert comprises threads (ribs 17, fig. 1).
Rehrig, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
520
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, further comprising an insert positioned within the bore of the shoulder knuckle, wherein the insert comprises threads, in view of the teachings of Rehrig, by using a frictional connection based on a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17, as taught by Rehrig, at the mounting site 54, as taught by Kensrue, in order to provide insulation to the housing, for the advantage of allowing the handle housing to remain cooler because the rubber ribs prevent the housing from being threaded directly onto components that feed a metal wire through the torch, where the wire becomes heated during welding (Rehrig, column 1, lines 27-44).
PHOSITA would have realized that the mountings site 54 of Kensrue can be easily and readily modified with a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17 as taught by Rehrig. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 29, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the insert further comprises a textured outer surface configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Rehrig teaches wherein the insert (metal collar 20, fig. 1) further comprises a textured outer surface (texturized with radially projecting ribs 17, fig. 1) configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface (interior wall 18, fig. 1) of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore (“The torch handle 16 is then held on the torch body by the frictional engagement of interior wall 18 of the handle and the radially projecting ribs 17 on the torch body,” column 4, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the insert further comprises a textured outer surface configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore, in view of the teachings of Rehrig, by using a frictional connection based on a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17, as taught by Rehrig, at the mounting site 54, as taught by Kensrue, in order to provide insulation to the housing, for the advantage of allowing the handle housing to remain cooler because the rubber ribs prevent the housing from being threaded directly onto components that feed a metal wire through the torch, where the wire becomes heated during welding (Rehrig, column 1, lines 27-44).
Regarding claim 34, Kensrue teaches the bolt comprises complementary threads (hinge 117 has threads at the end of the bolt, fig. 4), and the insert (right mounting site 54, fig. 4) is configured to engage complementary threads of a bolt (hinge 117, fig. 4) extending through the bore and the cap bore (“attached to the housing by a hinge 117,” para 0040; “a series of mounting sites 54 along their edges which allows the housing to be screwed together by screws,” para 0040).
Kensrue does not explicitly disclose further comprising an insert positioned within the bore of the knuckle, wherein the insert comprises threads.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Rehrig teaches further comprising an insert (metal collar 20, fig. 1) positioned within the bore of the knuckle (bore of torch handle 16, fig. 1), wherein the insert comprises threads (ribs 17, fig. 1).
Rehrig, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
520
572
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, further comprising an insert positioned within the bore of the knuckle, wherein the insert comprises threads, in view of the teachings of Rehrig, by using a frictional connection based on a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17, as taught by Rehrig, at the mounting site 54, as taught by Kensrue, in order to provide insulation to the housing, for the advantage of allowing the handle housing to remain cooler because the rubber ribs prevent the housing from being threaded directly onto components that feed a metal wire through the torch, where the wire becomes heated during welding (Rehrig, column 1, lines 27-44).
PHOSITA would have realized that the mountings site 54 of Kensrue can be easily and readily modified with a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17 as taught by Rehrig. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 35, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the insert further comprises a textured outer surface configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore.
However, in the same field of endeavor of welding torch equipment, Rehrig teaches wherein the insert (metal collar 20, fig. 1) further comprises a textured outer surface (texturized with radially projecting ribs 17, fig. 1) configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface (interior wall 18, fig. 1) of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore (“The torch handle 16 is then held on the torch body by the frictional engagement of interior wall 18 of the handle and the radially projecting ribs 17 on the torch body,” column 4, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the insert further comprises a textured outer surface configured to increase friction between the insert and an inner surface of the shoulder knuckle surrounding the bore, in view of the teachings of Rehrig, by using a frictional connection based on a metal collar 20 with rubber ribs 17, as taught by Rehrig, at the mounting site 54, as taught by Kensrue, in order to provide insulation to the housing, for the advantage of allowing the handle housing to remain cooler because the rubber ribs prevent the housing from being threaded directly onto components that feed a metal wire through the torch, where the wire becomes heated during welding (Rehrig, column 1, lines 27-44).
Regarding claim 36, Kensrue teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cover cap is further configured to rotate about the bolt between the open position, a second open position, and the closed position, and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of rotating covers between fixed closed and open positions, Ueyama teaches wherein the cover cap (member 30, fig. 5) is further configured to rotate (“rotation,” para 0194) about the bolt (attachment shaft 73, fig. 5 and actuation stick 67, fig. 6 ) between the open position (figs. 11A and 11B; “opened to 80°,” para 0220), a second open position (figs. 12A and 12B), and the closed position (figs. 10A and 10B), and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening (figs. 11A and 11B; secured at 80 degrees through the cams between part 42a and member 30, para 0206) and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening (figs. 12A and 12B; secured at 160 degrees through the cams between part 42a and the cams 34b of member 30, para 0206; 160 degrees is larger than 80 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kensrue to include, wherein the cover cap is further configured to rotate about the bolt between the open position, a second open position, and the closed position, and where the cover cap is configured to be secured at the open position to create a first opening and at the second open position to create a larger opening than the first opening, in view of the teachings of Ueyama, by using the cams 35b and 55b, as taught by Ueyama, in the hinge 117 and in the last knuckle through which the hinge 117 inserts, as taught by Kensrue in fig. 4, in order to use a hinge mechanism that facilitates a stable folding action at the open state, at the closed state, and at the midpoint between the open state and closed state, which provides a preferred snapping action and more stability for the door as it opens between open and closed states ensuring that the door does not become misaligned during opening and closing (Ueyama, paras 0022, 0060, and 0234).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2025 have been fully considered.
Objections
Page 7 states that amendments were provided to address the objections. Most of the objections were addressed. However, a specification objection and an objection for claim 26 still remain.
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f)
Page 7 of the arguments states that the Applicant traverses the interpretation invoked under 35 USC 112(f) and reserves the right to traverse these interpretations in the future. However, respectfully submit this was not one of the options provided in the recent Office action:
“(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed