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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, directed to Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 9/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/19/2025.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoener et al. (US 2021/0370430) in view of Denis et al. (US 2017/0021442).
Regarding Claim 1, Knoener discloses a welding system (Figures 1-4C), comprising:
an isolation circuitry between a power input and a power output to automatically isolate the power input from the power output (comprising 135, Figures 1A-1C, Paragraph 56, “…contactor 135 (e.g., high amperage relay) is controlled by the wire feeder controller 134 and configured to enable or inhibit welding power…”);
a monitoring circuit (comprising 127, Figures 1A-1C, Paragraph 56, “…one or more sensors 127 are included with or connected to in the wire feeder 102 to monitor one or more welding parameters (e.g., power, voltage, current, wire feed speed, etc.) to inform the controller 134 during the welding process”); and
a control circuitry (comprising 134, Figures 1A-1C) configured to:
control the isolation circuitry to disengage to inhibit welding power to the weld cable (Paragraph 56, “….contactor 135 (e.g., high amperage relay) is controlled by the wire feeder controller 134 and configured to enable or inhibit welding power to continue to flow to the weld cable 126 for the welding application”, Paragraph 67);
monitor a change in a power characteristic at the monitoring circuit (Paragraph 56, “…...to monitor one or more welding parameters (e.g., power, voltage, current, wire feed speed, etc.) to inform the controller 134 during the welding process”); and
engage the isolation circuitry in response to a power characteristic change at the monitoring circuit greater than a threshold characteristic value (Paragraph 56).
Knoener does not specifically disclose disengaging the isolation circuitry being in the idle mode.
Denis discloses a welding system (Figures 1-6), comprising: an isolation circuitry between a power input and a power output to automatically isolate the power input from the power output (Paragraph 29), wherein the isolation circuitry is controlled to disengage to provide power at a reduced level, at a zero volts (e.g. off) or at an idle level lower than a welding level (Paragraph 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disengage the isolation circuitry to reduce power level to an idle level lower than welding level as taught by Denis, to reduce power consumption.
Regarding Claim 2, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the power characteristic is voltage (Paragraph 56).
Regarding Claim 3, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 2, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine a voltage change exceeds a threshold voltage value, wherein the voltage change exceeding the threshold voltage value corresponds to activation of a welding mode resulting in a closed circuit between an electrode wire and a workpiece (change in input power/voltage change exceeding an operational threshold, Paragraphs 28-29, 43, 56-57. “….welding torch 106 delivers the wire, welding power, and/or shielding gas for a welding application. The welding torch 106 is used to establish a welding arc between the welding torch 106 and a workpiece 146. A work cable 148 couples the workpiece 146 to the power supply 102 (e.g., to the power conversion circuitry 110) to provide a return path for the weld current (e.g., as part of the weld circuit)”).
Regarding Claim 4, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the power output includes welding power circuitry or gouging power circuitry (welding power circuitry providing power to torch 306).
Regarding Claim 5, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the welding system is a wire feeder (wire feeder 104).
Regarding Claim 6, combination of Knoener and Vu discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the isolation circuitry comprises a contactor (comprising contactor 135).
Regarding Claim 7, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the isolation circuitry includes a physical interlock comprising one or more of a relay, a contactor, or a switch (comprising contactor 135).
Regarding Claim 8, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein an input power at the power input is less than 100 mW during the idle mode (Denis, Paragraph 45).
Regarding Claim 9, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein an input power at the power input is greater than 10 W during a welding mode (Paragraph 64, “…operational values may span a first predetermined threshold (e.g., 10%) or first predetermined value (e.g., 10V, 5A) below or above a rated input value…” ).
Regarding Claim 10, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, wherein the isolation circuitry is configured to electrically or physically isolate the output power terminal from the input power terminal (135 in open state physically isolate the output power terminal connected to output to 106 from the input power terminal connected to 126, Figure 1A).
Regarding Claim 11, combination of Knoener and Denis discloses the welding system of Claim 1, further comprising a user interface to receive a command to provide the welding power input or to enter the idle mode (comprising 114, Figure 1A, Paragraph 47).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, on Pages 5-6 of the Remarks that the disclosure of Knoener (Paragraph 56 and the rest of Knoener) mentions nothing about the wire feeder controller 134 engaging the contactor 135 in response to a power characteristic change at the sensors 127 greater than a threshold characteristic value. It does mention that sensor(s) 127 can monitor welding parameter(s) to "inform the controller 134," but there is no discussion about any action that the controller 134 may take in response to a change of power characteristic at the sensor(s) 127.
In response, examiner respectfully notes that as Applicant noted above, Knoener in Paragraph 56 discloses controller 134 receives the welding parameters from sensors 127 and also discloses the isolation circuitry/contactor 135 being controlled by controller 134 to inhibit or enable power, “….contactor 135 (e.g., high amperage relay) is controlled by the wire feeder controller 134 and configured to enable or inhibit welding power to continue to flow to the weld cable 126 for the welding application” and in Figures 4B, 4C show control flow chart for controlling and/or maintain power output based on comparing monitored values with predetermined range/values.
It is further respectfully noted that Knoener in Paragraph 67 discloses, “…if an evaluation of input power characteristics (e.g., during a power-up sequence, during a welding operation, etc.) determines that one or more of the input power characteristics is less than or greater than the lower or upper values of the second range of operational values 82, the output of the welding power supply 100 may be limited and/or disabled…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kadlec et al. (US 2019/0366469) discloses a welding system (Figures 1-3), comprising: isolation circuitry between a power input and a power output to automatically isolate the power input from the power output (comprising 135, Figures 1A-1C); control circuitry (comprising 134, Figures 1A-1C) configured to control the isolation circuitry to disengage to inhibit welding power to the weld cable (Figures 1A-1C).
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 LUCY M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-6002. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Crystal L Hammond can be reached at (571)270-1682. 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.
/LUCY M THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2838, 3/17/2026.
/CRYSTAL L HAMMOND/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838