Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhong et al (CN 112059380), see applicant provided machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Zhong discloses, a shielding jig attached to a welding torch for shield welding (See Fig 1-3), the jig comprising a first outer shell member (surround 5.1) that surrounds the welding torch (torch 1 is configured to melt a metal filler), is disposed to form a radial gap from the welding torch (Fig 1 shows a radial gap between the torch and shell), and is configured to define a first annular space having a first opening in a bottom portion thereof (Space 14), a first gas supply member that is disposed to surround the welding torch inside the first outer shell member, and is configured to supply a shielding gas to the first annular space (Gas supply 4.3 provides a shielding gas) ; and a dispersing member that is disposed below the first gas supply member in the first annular space, and is configured to disperse the shielding gas. (Dispersing member 7)
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (JP 2016-016430) with references made to applicant machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Tanimoto discloses, a two nozzle welding apparatus, for protecting a weld seam, it discloses in essence a protection jig, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 18-33 of the specification, Figures 1-3): which is mounted to a torch body 2 (equivalent to a torch) for protective welding which melts and solidifies a welding wire 3 (equivalent to a filler material) to form a deposited bead, therein, the protection clamp is provided with: an outer nozzle 8 (equivalent to a first casing member) covering the circumference of the torch body 2 (equivalent to the torch) and being arranged with a radial gap from the torch body 2 (equivalent to the torch) and dividing a first annular space having an opening 8a (equivalent to a first opening) at the bottom; an outer gas supply tube 10 (equivalent to a first gas supply member) arranged around the torch body 2 (equivalent to a torch) inside the outer nozzle 8 (equivalent to a first enclosure member) and supplying a shielding gas to said first annular space; and a dispersion member consisting of the gas lens 12 and the heat resistant fiber body 13, which is disposed in a position lower than the outer gas supply tube 10 (corresponding to the first gas supply member) in the first annular space, and rectifies (corresponding to dispersion) the shielding gas.
Tanimoto may fail to disclose the filler material is metal. However, a welding wire is generally formed from metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the torch to melt and solidify a filler metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Tanimoto discloses, an annular space for the same protective gas supply as in the present application is disclosed, on this basis, to achieve a gas shielded weld puddle, controlling a gas flow rate greater than or equal to 113.17 mm/sec, it is the person skilled in the art to adapt the settings according to the welding needs, without creative effort, from the relationship of gas flow rate to gas volume and cross-sectional area, a mathematical equation is constructed to control the flow rate: when the flow rate of the shielding gas ejected from the first opening is set at Vout, a total valve flow rate of the shielding gas supplied to the first annulus is set at Vin, a peripheral diameter of the torch is set at do, and a peripheral diameter of the first housing member is set at dl, as regards the flow rate Vout of the shielding gas, Math (1) holds, Vout = Vin4 (dl2-d22) > 113.17, which is conventional in the art without inventive effort since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3-6, Fig 1 shows a notch in the nozzle forming a member for holding the dispersing member 12 between the fiber body 13.
Regarding claim 18, it would have been obvious to provide the filler material being titanium or titanium alloy since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 19, the device in Tanimoto is an arc welding device.
Claim(s) 7-9, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (JP 2016-016430) in view of Murai et al (JP 2014-108458).
The teachings of Tanimoto have been discussed above. Tanimoto fails to disclose a second outer shell member that is disposed outside an outer peripheral surface of the first outer shell member to have a radial gap therebetween, and is configured to define a second annular space having a lid portion at an upper portion and a second opening at a bottom portion between the second outer shell member and the first outer shell member; and a second gas supply member configured to supply the shielding gas to the second annular space.
Murai discloses, a power chuck of the four-jaw double-action type, and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 16-37 of the specification, Figures 1-4): The protective jig is further provided with: a shielding nozzle 6 (equivalent to a second housing member) disposed with a radial gap outside an outer peripheral surface of the plasma nozzle 5 (equivalent to a first housing member) and dividing a flow path 13a (equivalent to a second annular space) having a cap portion on an upper portion and a second opening on a bottom portion between the plasma nozzle 5 (equivalent to the first housing member). It would have been obvious to adapt Tanimoto in view of Murai to provide the second outer shell for providing second gas to the welding portion. Regarding claims 8 an 9, it would have been obvious to provide the outer and inner diameter sizes since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 14-17, Murai discloses A gas retention space 14a (equivalent to a narrowing) is formed at least at the bottom of the shielded nozzle 6 (equivalent to the second shell member) that gradually reduces the distance of the radius of the shielded nozzle 6 (equivalent to the second shell member) along the axial direction of the torch. It would have been obvious to adapt Tanimoto in vide of Murai to provide the narrowed portion gradually decreasing along an axial direction for increasing the flow rate and density of the shielding gas.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanimoto (JP 2016-016430) in view of Murai et al (JP 2014-108458) and Chiba et al (JP 07-241682).
The teachings of Tanimoto have been discussed above. Tanimoto fails to disclose, regarding claim 10-12, a rectification unit to make a flow direction of the shielding gas in a spiral shape is provided in the second annular space.
Chiba discloses, a welding gun and welding cladding apparatus and specifically discloses the following technical features (see paragraphs 9-41 of the description, figures 1-6): In the shielding gas passage 97 (corresponding to the second annular space), fins 93 (corresponding to fairings) are provided which spiral the direction of flow of the shielding gas. It would have been obvious to provide the rectification unit to create the spiral flow for extending the time the shielding gas is present in the nozzle and at the tip, thereby producing a greater cooling effect on the welding torch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights