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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
The refence lines in figs. 1, 1A, 1B, 8 are not clear but instead mingle with the black shading of the cross-sections in the drawings (PCT Rules 11.13.b and 11.13.e, MPEP 1825).
The details of figs. 4-7 are such that the figures do not enable photographic reproduction and the letters and numbers are not simple and clear (PCT Rules 11.13.e and 11.13.c).
Figures 1A, 2, 2A, 3, and 8 are not executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined, lines and strokes without colorings. Instead of using a black color, a grayscale coloring is used (PCT Rule 11.13.a).
Figures 2, 2A, and 3 are not in English.
The reference sign 205 in fig. 9 is not mentioned in the description (PCT Rule 11.13.l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend identifying what the acronyms “PSIG” and “SCFH” stand for in the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Wi-Fi,” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend not using capital letters for the words at the beginning of the claims. For example, claim 1 should begin: “Regulating equipment…”
In claim 1, recommend amending the claim to recite: “an external server” and “a gas passage line.”
In claim 2, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the gas flow.”
In claim 3, recommend amending the claim to recite “the automation interface” (already recited in claim 1). Also recommend amending the claim to recite: “…a wire sensor and a voltage sensor.”
In claim 4, recommend amending the claim to recite: “a welding process.”
In claim 5, recommend amending the claim to recite: “a wire sensor,” “a wire,” “a robot,” and “a wire quantity.”
In claim 6, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…the wire sensor configured to calculate
In claim 7, recommend amending the claim to recite: “a process algorithm” (line 11) and “wherein the data tracking occurs” (second from last line).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Claims 1 and 7 contain the trademark/trade name “Wi-Fi.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a microcontroller, antenna, and a chip, and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the equipment" in lines 3, 11-13, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the equipment” refers to the “regulating equipment” of line 1 or the “equipment” of line 2. For the purpose of the examination, the “equipment” of lines 3,11-13, and 15 will be interpreted as referring to the “equipment” of line 2.
Claim 1 recites: “…all interconnected to a microcontroller configured to read all variables…” The antecedent for “all” is unclear. Does “all” refer to the electric current sensor, the electrical connection, the gas flow sensor, and the proportional valve? Does “all” also include the entry point and the gas passage line? Additionally, it is unclear if the “microcontroller” can also be the earlier recited “Wi-Fi microcontroller.” In other words, it appears that the claim requires two microcontrollers, but the Specification only discloses one microcontroller. Finally, it is not clear which variables are considered to be “all variables,” because the variables are not positively recited. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 2 recites “…reducing turbulence in the flow and maintaining linearity in the gas flow.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the proportional valve or based on the method for reducing turbulence and maintaining linearity. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “…an inner orifice of the proportional valve opens and closes in proportion to the applied electrical signal, wherein the proportional valve is configured to reduceto maintain
Claim 3 recites “characterized by the equipment optionally presenting an automation interface linked to an entry point that interconnects with an additional board, overlaid and fitted together with the board, allowing the management of the wire sensor and voltage sensor.” Because “optionally” is used, it is unclear if the limitations that follow are required according to the claim or if instead the limitations are optional, i.e., not required. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “…characterized by the equipment
Claim 5 recites: “REGULATING EQUIPMENT according to claim 1, characterized by the wire sensor having an entry point and an exit point for the wire positioned near the robot…” It is unclear if the scope of claim 5 includes a “robot.” Claim 5 is directed to “regulating equipment.” The Specification discloses the equipment 100 as being separate and distinct from the equipment 100 (fig. 2). However, claim 5 includes a structural limitation where an exit point must be “positioned” near a robot. As a result, it is unclear if the scope of claim 5 is directed to “regulating equipment” or something more than “regulating equipment.” Recommend clarifying whether a robot is required within the scope of claim 5 either by broadening the preamble of the independent claim or changing the “robot” limitation to a functional limitation. For the purpose of the examination, claim 5 will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as not requiring a “robot” within the claim scope.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sensor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the sensor” refers to the “pressure sensor,” the “gas flow sensor,” the “wire sensor,” or the “electric current sensor.” The Specification describes that for the wire sensor 200, “the sensor (200) has an electrical connection point (204) to connect with the equipment (100).” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as: “the wire sensor.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “the emitted gas flow.” Although claim 1 requires a “gas flow,” there is no requirement for the gas flow to be “emitted.” As a result, the scope of claim 5 is unclear because it is unclear if the gas flow needs to be configured to be emitted from the equipment. For the purpose of the examination, because the limitation is not positively recited, the limitation will be interpreted as “the
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the equipment of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. With respect to claim 1, it is unclear if “the equipment” refers to the “regulating equipment” of line 1 or the “equipment” of line 2. As a result, the scope of claim 7 is unclear—does claim 7 require all of the “regulating equipment” of claim 1 or only the “equipment” that is in the body of claim 1. For the purpose of the examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as including the “regulating equipment” of claim 1, i.e., all of claim 1 is within the scope of claim 7.
Claim 7 recites “…the system performs the following steps:…” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on the system or based on the method steps for using the system. For the purpose of the examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as being an apparatus claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "extract process data from sensors installed on the equipment.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the “sensors” refers to the “pressure sensor,” the “gas flow sensor,” or the “electric current sensor” of claim 1. Additionally, the scope of the claimed “sensors” is not clear—must two “sensors” be selected or is just one sensor sufficient? It is also unclear if any of these sensors must be installed on the equipment, which is not positively recited in either claim 1 or claim 7. For the purpose of the examination, the “sensors” in claim 7 will be interpreted as referring to at least one of the sensors that are recited in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites: “…real-time indications for all equipment installed in the factory…” It is unclear which equipment is considered to be “all equipment installed in the factory” For example, would the lighting or heating/cooling system inside a factory be considered as part of the “all equipment installed in the factory?” Recommend clarifying what equipment is considered to be “all equipment installed in the factory.”
Claim 7 recites: “…categorize, by the portal, installed devices into groups, allowing information to be selectively exposed to different groups…” It is unclear which devices are categorized into groups by the portal, what are these different groups, and then how information is selectively shared between these groups of installed devices. The Specification repeats this limitation and indicates the process is described in fig. 5 of the drawings. However, fig. 5 is not legible. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 7 recites: “…generating a big data set of the company's welding process data…” The term “big” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “big” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Additionally, it is unclear if claim 7 is specific to companies or if the claim can include other entities. For example, does claim 7 apply to a non-profit or a government agency? Neither a non-profit nor a government agency is considered to be a company. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708).
Regarding claim 1, Ahmet teaches REGULATING EQUIPMENT (system 1, fig. 1) characterized by comprising equipment (system 1 except for the torch attachment 12, fig. 1) equipped with an entry point (gas inlet unit 3, fig. 2), exit point (gas outlet unit 8, fig. 2), the equipment further includes a microcontroller (control unit 41, fig. 1; “microcontroller,” para 0014) and the electronic board (Ahmet does not explicitly disclose an electric board; the unit 4 is construed as having a board for mounting the devices inside the unit 4, fig. 1) comprises a pressure sensor (gas pressure sensor 44, fig. 1) connected to the exit point (gas outlet unit 8, fig. 1), a proportional valve (proportional valve 42, fig. 1) located near the entry point (valve 42 is located near the unit 3, fig. 1), a gas flow sensor (gas flow sensor 43, fig. 1) positioned in the gas passage line (line between unit 3 and unit 8, fig. 1), and an electrical connection point (connection unit 10, fig. 2) for the electric current sensor (current sensor 9, fig. 1), all interconnected to a microcontroller (control unit 41, fig. 1; “microcontroller,” para 0014) configured to read all variables (“provides appropriate protective gas control according to selected work parameters and measured instantaneous current,” para 014), using embedded software (“PID control loop method,” para 0018; construed such that software is used to implement a loop method) to work in conjunction with the proportional valve located near the entry point to control the gas flow behavior (“maintain the protective gas flow rate,” para 016); the equipment is equipped with a display (user interface 46, fig. 2; para 0020) allowing the user to set the gas flow and necessary parameters (paras 014 and 016), and an indicator of equipment status (“monitor the current status,” para 014); the equipment has an entry point (PWR unit 7, fig. 2) for electrical power supply (para 013) and an entry point for automation interface (industrial communication interface 5, fig. 2), allowing communication with external devices (“communicate bidirectionally with the machine, automation system or robot,” para 013).
Ahmet, figs. 1 and 2
PNG
media_image1.png
494
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ahmet does not explicitly disclose a Wi-Fi antenna for connection to an external server; the equipment further includes an electronic board with a Wi-Fi microcontroller that, together with the antenna, exchanges information with the external server; a set of buttons, the equipment enables online monitoring, control, process storage, and production data tracking through the external server connected to a user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Dessart ‘708 teaches a Wi-Fi antenna (antenna 216, fig. 2b; “WiFi,” para 0045) for connection to an external server (remote device 250, fig. 2b; “computer server,” para 0040); the equipment further includes an electronic board (“one or more boards, that form part or all of a controller,” para 0128) with a Wi-Fi microcontroller (“processor may be, for example, any type of general purpose microprocessor or microcontroller,” para 0129; “WiFi,” para 0045; the processing circuitry 222 in fig. 2b is construed as being a Wi-Fi microcontroller) that, together with the antenna, exchanges information with the external server (paras 0044-0048); a set of buttons (“buttons,” para 0044), the equipment enables online monitoring, control, process storage, and production data tracking (“the connection may be through a network (e.g., a Local Access Network, Wide Area Network, the Internet, etc.),” para 0039; a network connection through the internet is construed as enabling the claimed “online monitoring, control, process storage, and production data tracking”) through the external server connected to a user interface (user interface 268, fig. 2b; paras 0047-0048).
Dessart ‘708, fig. 2b
PNG
media_image3.png
1219
821
media_image3.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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Dessart ‘708, by enabling wireless communication of the gas protection unit 4, as taught by Ahmet, using the antenna 216 to communicate through a wireless network with a remote server 250 having a user interface 268, as taught by Dessart ‘708, and by using buttons, as taught by Dessart ‘708, on the user interface 46, as taught by Ahmet, in order to enable communication between the regulator with a remote device, for the advantage of providing outputs to an operator via the remote device in a format that can be easily understood and controlled, and so as to also enable a user to input the work parameters directly to the regulator by placing buttons on the user interface, facilitating both remote and local means for control of the welding system (Dessart ‘708, paras 0019 and 0044; Ahmet, para 016).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Downie et al. (US-20150323361-A1).
Ahmet teaches characterized by the proportional valve (proportional valve 42, fig. 1) using an electrical signal (connection between control unit 41 and valve 42, fig. 1; “proportional valve (42) control,” para 016) to perform the function of opening and closing proportionally to the applied electrical signal (paras 016 and 018-019), wherein the proportional valve is configured to reduce turbulence in the flow and to maintain linearity in the gas flow (last sentence, para 018; construed such that by controlling the gas flow rate using feedback, turbulence can be reduced and a linear gas flow can be maintained).
Ahmet does not explicitly disclose an inner orifice of the proportional valve opens and closes in proportion to the applied electrical signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Downie teaches an inner orifice (aperture 170, fig. 7) of the proportional valve (solenoid valve 302, fig. 7) opens and closes (“operation of the solenoid valve,” para 0138) in proportion to the applied electrical signal (signal to drive 352 from the microprocessor 238, fig. 7; para 0136).
Downie, fig. 7
PNG
media_image4.png
837
746
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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Downie, by using a solenoid valve with a solenoid drive, as taught by Downie, as the proportional valve 42, as taught by Ahmet, in order to automate the mass flow rate of gas through the valve without having a user to manually make the adjustments by hand (Downie, paras 0012 and 0081; para 0081 is specific to the first embodiment, which uses a handle to make the adjustments; examiner is relying on the second embodiment to teach the claimed “orifice”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Villafuerte et al. (US-6130407-A) and Ma et al. (CN-111505998-A).
Regarding claim 3, Ahmet teaches characterized by the equipment presenting an automation interface (industrial communication interface 5, fig. 2) linked to an entry point (industrial communication interface 5, fig. 2; the interface 5 is construed as an “entry point,” fig. 2)..
Ahmet does not explicitly disclose an additional board, overlaid and fitted together with the board, allowing the management of the wire sensor and voltage sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Villafuerte teaches allowing the management of the wire sensor (wire speed sensor 12, fig. 1) and voltage sensor (voltage sensor 14, fig. 1).
Villafuerte, fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
332
706
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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Villafuerte, by using the torch 10 with a wire speed sensor 12 and a voltage sensor 14, as taught by Villafuerte, as the welding and cutting machine 11, as taught by Ahmet, in order to use a welding torch with a plurality of sensors that are integrated into the welding torch, for the advantage of providing real-time monitoring of wire speed, arc voltage, gas flow, seam-tracking, temperature, current, and contact tip wear (Villafuerte, column 1, lines 48-52).
Ahmet/Villafuerte do not explicitly disclose an additional board, overlaid and fitted together with the board.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Ma teaches an additional board (high-frequency filter and power board 51, fig. 10), overlaid and fitted together with the board (main control board 45, fig. 10; board 51 is construed as overlay and being fitted together with board 45, figs. 10-11).
Ma, fig. 10
PNG
media_image6.png
564
860
media_image6.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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Ma, by using two boards that are fitted with each other, as taught by Ma, as the boards, that are taught by Dessart ‘708, where the board 51, as taught by Ma, connects with the interface 5, as taught by Ahmet, in order to use an integrated high-frequency filter module is on a power board board to filter any unexpected power surges and noise that are provided to the regulator via the external welding torch.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ahmet in view of Dessart ‘708, Villafuerte, and Ma as set forth above regarding claim 3 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Villafuerte teaches characterized by the voltage sensor (voltage sensor 14, fig. 1) being used to measure electric voltage during the welding process (column 2, lines 54-57).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Villafuerte et al. (US-6130407-A).
Ahmet teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose characterized by the wire sensor having an entry point and an exit point for the wire positioned near the robot; the sensor monitors the wire quantity used according to the gas flow; the wire sensor has an electrical connection point to connect to the equipment.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Villafuerte teaches characterized by the wire sensor (wire speed sensor 12, fig. 1) having an entry point and an exit point (annotated below) for the wire (column 2, line 43) positioned near the robot (“An arc welding torch for robotic applications,” abstract; construed such that the torch can be positioned near a robot if it can be used for robotic applications); the wire sensor monitors the wire quantity used according to the gas flow (“measure wire speed,” column 2, line 43; wire speed is construed as being a quantity provided over time; “gas flow,” column 1, line 52); the wire sensor has an electrical connection point (“encoders,” column 2, lines 47-48) to connect to the equipment (column 2, lines 45-53).
Villafuerte, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image7.png
416
754
media_image7.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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Villafuerte, by using the torch 10 with a wire speed sensor 12 and a voltage sensor 14, as taught by Villafuerte, as the welding and cutting machine 11, as taught by Ahmet, in order to use a welding torch with a plurality of sensors that are integrated into the welding torch, for the advantage of providing real-time monitoring of wire speed, arc voltage, gas flow, seam-tracking, temperature, current, and contact tip wear (Villafuerte, column 1, lines 48-52).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708), and Villafuerte et al. (US-6130407-A) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above and further in view of Dessart et al. (US-20210316384-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘384).
The combination of Ahmet in view of Dessart ‘708, Villafuerte, and Ma as set forth above regarding claim 3 partially teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Villafuerte teaches characterized by the wire sensor (wire speed sensor 12, fig. 1) calculating the deposition speed of the wire used during the welding process (“measure wire speed,” column 2, line 43) through pulse counting (“pulses,” column 2, lines 45-53).
Ahmet/Villafuerte do not explicitly disclose the wire sensor calculating the weight.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Dessart ‘384 teaches the wire sensor (sensors 500, fig. 2) calculating the weight (“weight sensors,” para 0045; “weight of the spool,” para 0045; the spool houses the wiring, fig. 4a).
Dessart ‘384, fig. 2
PNG
media_image8.png
1121
709
media_image8.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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Dessart ‘384, by using a weight sensor on the spool, as taught by Dessart ‘384, where the weight sensor was considered to be included as part of the wire speed sensor 12, as taught by Villafuerte, in order to determine the remaining amount of wire on the spool such that once the remaining wire approaches a certain threshold, the welding operation can be stopped to prevent a negative impact on the welding operation (Dessart ‘384, para 0017).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmet al. (TR-202101370-A2, referencing foreign version for drawings and provide English translation for written disclosure) in view of Dessart e al. (US-20210283708-A1; hereinafter Dessart ‘708) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Daniel et al. (US-20200261997-A1).
Ahmet teaches a SYSTEM (system 1, fig. 1) characterized by the equipment of claim 1 (system 1, fig. 1).
Ahmet does not explicitly disclose performing online process monitoring and control, and storage and tracking of production data through the electronic board, which facilitates data exchange between the external server and the equipment; the system performs the following steps: stores information including one or more of: equipment name, cycle start and end date, cycle time, cycle flow rate, current, wire speed, wire quantity per cycle, gas/wire ratio, pressure, total cycle volume, equipment uptime, accumulated gas volume in enabled mode, accumulated gas volume in disabled mode, accumulated wire quantity, and voltage; extract process data from sensors installed on the equipment and results from data processing executed in the process algorithm; send information via serial communication to a Wi-Fi-enabled chip located on the board, the Wi-Fi chip then sends the information via Wi-Fi, using a private protocol, to a network, store information arriving at the server in a database and later exposed through a portal, display, through the portal, consumption graphs in monthly periods and dashboards with real-time indications for all equipment installed in the factory; categorize, by the portal, installed devices into groups, allowing information to be selectively exposed to different groups; show and store, on the portal, parameters and status data for each device, generating a big data set of the company's welding process data; parameterize the equipment through the portal; wherein the data Tracking occurs at specified intervals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Dessart ‘708 teaches performing online process monitoring and control (monitoring and control through the “internet” by the remote device 250, paras 0039-0040), and storage and tracking of production data (data is stored and tracked in the memory circuitry 274, fig. 2b; para 0064) through the electronic board (“boards,” para 0128), which facilitates data exchange between the external server (remote device 250, fig. 2b) and the equipment (regulator 200, fig. 2b); the system (fig. 2b) performs the following steps:
stores information (information is stored in the memory circuitry 274, fig. 2b; paras 0049 and 0064) including one or more of: equipment name (“tool types para 0064), cycle start and end date (“welding-type operations,” para 0064), cycle time (“timestamp information,” para 0059), cycle flow rate (“flow rate(s),” para 0059), current, wire speed, wire quantity per cycle, gas/wire ratio (not explicitly disclosed), pressure (“outlet pressures,” para 0064), total cycle volume (“remaining fluid,” para 0065), equipment uptime (“target use time,” para 0051), accumulated gas volume in enabled mode (“amount of fluid used,” para 0059), accumulated gas volume in disabled mode (“amount of fluid in the fluid tank 106 when full,” para 0059), accumulated wire quantity, and voltage (not explicitly disclosed);
extract process data from sensors installed on the equipment and results from data processing executed in the process algorithm (data is extracted from “pressure sensors,” para 0043);
send information via serial communication to a Wi-Fi-enabled chip (“chip,” para 0121; “WiFi,” para 0045; information is sent through the antennas 216 and 266, fig. 2b) located on the board (para 0128), the Wi-Fi chip then sends the information via Wi-Fi, using a private protocol (“wireless protocals,” para 0045), to a network (“network,” para 0039),
store information arriving at the server in a database (para 0064) and later exposed through a portal (“graphic,” para 0065),
display, through the portal, consumption graphs (“graphic,” para 0065);
parameterize the equipment through the portal (the “remaining fluid” is construed as a parameter of the equipment, para 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Dessart ‘708, by enabling wireless communication of the gas protection unit 4, as taught by Ahmet, using the antenna 216 to communicate through a wireless network with a remote server 250, as taught by Dessart ‘708, in order to enable communication between the regulator with a remote device, for the advantage of providing outputs to an operator via the remote device in a format that can be easily understood and controlled (Dessart ‘708, paras 0019 and 0044; Ahmet, para 016).
Ahmet/ Dessart ‘708 do not explicitly disclose consumption graphs in monthly periods and dashboards with real-time indications for all equipment installed in the factory; categorize, by the portal, installed devices into groups, allowing information to be selectively exposed to different groups; show and store, on the portal, parameters and status data for each device, generating a big data set of the company's welding process data; wherein the data Tracking occurs at specified intervals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of regulators for welding systems, Daniel teaches consumption graphs (“graphical images,” para 0068) in monthly periods and dashboards (“A user can use a secure user name and password to access pertinent data at any time of the day,” para 0029; construed such that a user can access the information monthly) with real-time indications for all equipment installed in the factory (“all welders or cutters in a facility,” para 0029); categorize, by the portal, installed devices into groups (“groupings,” para 0086), allowing information to be selectively exposed to different groups (“groupings of the welding (or cutting) data will be formed,” para 0080); show and store, on the portal, parameters and status data for each device (“tracking welding performance data on any welder or cutter in the system,” para 0028), generating a big data set of the company's welding process data (“even company-wide,” para 0029); wherein the data Tracking occurs at specified intervals (“sending data packets at periodic intervals to the cloud database,” para 0029).
Daniel, fig. 3
PNG
media_image9.png
959
771
media_image9.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 Ahmet, in view of the teachings of Daniel, where the remote device 250, as taught by Ahmet, is a cloud where data is uploaded to a central server, as taught by Daniel, in order to use a cloud network for monitoring the welders at a company location, where data routinely flows from a company’s welding sources to a secure data center, such that the data can be downloaded by any user via an internet browser or via mobile apps on a smartphone or tablet (Daniel, para 0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Halvorsen et al. (US-20050224466-A1) teach controlling the wire feeding in a welding system.
Fochesatto et al. (US-20190168330-A1) teach an application similar to the instant application.
Kadlec et al (US-20190176260-A1) teach a system for regulating the purge gas in a welding power system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights