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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: welding power 120.
The drawings are objected to because the meaning of the double-sided arrow on the right side of the User Interface 116 is not clear in figs. 1-2.
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.
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. 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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not in narrative form but instead uses the same phraseology as claim 1. 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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite: “further comprising communication circuitry configured to communicate the one or more alternative parameters or a duration to a welding accessory.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a welding system (portable welder 100, fig. 1), comprising:
a power input (power input unit 470, fig. 4A) configured to receive input power from one or more batteries (battery cells in the battery pack 474, fig. 4A; para 0094);
power conversion circuitry (welding circuit 465, fig. 4A) configured to convert the input power from the one or more batteries (“power received through the battery pack interface 472,” para 0094) to welding power (power produced for welding in the welding circuit 465, fig. 4A; para 0093);
a user interface (interface 900, fig. 9A);
a battery monitor (battery pack 474 battery pack interface 472, fig. 4A) configured to determine (the interface 472 “communicatively connects” with the battery pack 474, para 0094) one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“the battery pack communicates a 20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111); and
control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A; “plurality of electrical and electronic components,” para 0091) configured to:
determine a welding capacity (step 910, fig. 9B; “amount of usable battery discharge time left ,” para 0113; “TLEFT” is construed as the claimed “welding capacity;” calculation of the runtime is explained in para 0111) associated with the one or more parameters for the welding power (“The portable welder 100 is set to 140 A at the output,” para 0111; “__ A,” fig. 9A; “user-set welding current,” para 0111;the user-set welding current is construed as the claimed “one or more parameters” and is included in the calculation in para 0111) and based on the determined one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111; included in the calculation in para 0111);
in response to determining that the welding capacity (“TLEFT” fig. 9B) does not support (“TLEFT< TWELD;” “YES,” fig. 9B; para 0113) the one or more parameters for the welding power (the “runtime prediction” for TLEFT is calculated based on the user-set amperage, para 0111), output an indication (indication 905, fig. 9A) representative of at least one limitation on the one or more parameters (“__ A,” fig. 9A) for the welding power based on the welding capacity (indication 905/alert 920 is based on the TLEFT calculation, paras 0112-0113 and fig. 9B);
in response to determining that the welding capacity supports (TLEFT> TWELD; “NO,” fig. 9B; para 0113) the one or more parameters for the welding power (the “runtime prediction” for TLEFT is calculated based on the user-set amperage, para 0111), output an indication of remaining welding capacity (“Welding Time Left: __,” fig. 9A; para 0111); and
control the power conversion circuitry based on the one or more parameters (“If the welding time of the task is shorter than the time left for battery pack to be discharged, then the portable welder 100 continue operation as normal (STEP 925),” para 0113; “The controller 400 drive the welding circuit 465 to perform a welding tasks,” para 0093; construed such that the user-set welding current is used to provide power to the welding circuit 465 if there is sufficient charge in the battery).
Walker, fig. 4A
PNG
media_image1.png
739
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Walker does not explicitly disclose a user interface configured to input one or more parameters for the welding power.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Koh teaches a user interface (panel 113, fig. 3) configured to input one or more parameters (current input section 114, fig. 3) for the welding power (“output current,” para 0038).
Koh, fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
814
387
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 Walker, in view of the teachings of Koh, by using a current input section 114, as taught by Koh, on the interface 900, as taught by Walker, in order to enable a user to set the welding machine output current, for the advantage of providing usage information for a battery welder that is easy to carry, facilitates mobile work, and improves usability of the welder (Koh, paras 0006 and 0038).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Walker in view of Koh as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Koh teaches wherein the one or more parameters of the welding power comprise at least one of workpiece thickness, output voltage (not explicitly disclosed), output current (“output current,” para 0038), wire feed speed, welding wire diameter, welding wire type, welding process, pulse frequency, or pulse magnitude (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 7, Walker teaches further comprising communication circuitry (wireless communication controller 455; the controller includes a processor 494, fig. 4B, which is construed as the claimed “circuitry”) configured to communicate the one or more alternative parameters (indeicators 445, fig. 4A; para 0095) or the duration (“welding time,” para 0102) to a welding accessory (external device 482, fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 9, Walker teaches wherein the battery monitor (battery pack 474 battery pack interface 472, fig. 4A) comprises communication circuitry configured to communicate (“electrical components configured to and operable for interfacing (e.g., mechanically, electrically, and communicatively connecting),” para 0094) with the one or more batteries (battery cells in the battery pack 474, para 0094) to determine the at least one of the one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“the battery pack communicates a 20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111).
Regarding claim 10, Walker teaches wherein the one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111) comprise at least one of a battery temperature, a battery temperature curve (not explicitly disclosed), a battery charge level (“20% charge,” para 0111), a battery charge capacity (not explicitly disclosed), a battery impedance (not explicitly disclosed), an upper current limit (not explicitly disclosed), a battery size (“216 Wh,” para 0111), a battery chemistry (not explicitly disclosed), a battery brand (not explicitly disclosed), a battery model (not explicitly disclosed), a number of charge-discharge cycles (not explicitly disclosed), a battery ampere-hour rating (not explicitly disclosed), a battery voltage (“72 Volts,” para 0111), a battery energy density (not explicitly disclosed), a specific energy density (not explicitly disclosed), a power density (not explicitly disclosed), or a battery discharge curve (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 13, Walker teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A) is configured to output the indication of the remaining welding capacity (indication 905, fig. 9A) as at least one of a remaining welding duration (“Welding Time Left: __,” fig. 9A) using the one or more parameters (“__ A,” fig. 9A), a length of welding using the one or more parameters (not explicitly disclosed), or a number of welds of predetermined length using the one or more parameters (not explicitly disclosed).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shanmugam et al. (US-20250187095-A1, effective filing date of 29 June 2022).
Regarding claim 2, Walker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a utility power monitor configured to determine whether utility power is input to the power input and, when the utility power is input to the power input, to determine one or more properties of the utility power (although Walker teaches a power adapter that plugs into a wall, para 0075 and fig. 3, Walker does not explicitly disclose a power monitor for the power adapter).
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Shanmugam teaches further comprising a utility power monitor (rectifier 122, fig. 1) configured to determine whether utility power is input to the power input (“rectifier 122 supplies an indication of AC mains input voltage 161 to battery boost converter control module 167,” para 0019; fig. 2) and, when the utility power is input to the power input, to determine one or more properties of the utility power (determine range of the voltage input, steps 314 and 322, fig. 3A).
Shanmugam, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
1171
724
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 Walker, in view of the teachings of Shanmugam, by using a battery boost converter and a main power board 120 with a rectifier 122, as taught by Shanmugam, that provided the AC input voltage for the wall adapter to the power input unit 470, as taught by Walker, in order to use an adaptive battery control process that optimizes the battery power output, regulating the AC mains input current, for the advantage of delivering a higher power output during a hybrid boost mode (Shanmugam, para 0020).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Walker teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A is configured to determine the welding capacity (“runtime prediction,” para 0110; para 0091) based on the one or more properties (user-set current, e.g., “85 A,” para 0111). Additionally, Shanmugam teaches the one or more properties of the utility power (Walker teaches calculating the runtime prediction based on the voltage and current of the battery; in Shanmugam, Vbat and Ibat in fig. 3B are calculated based on the Vinput in fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Shanmugam teaches wherein the one or more properties of the utility power comprise at least one of a source type of the utility power (type of voltage, operations 314 and 322, fig. 3A), an input voltage of the utility power (AC mains input voltage 161, fig. 2), a number of phases of the utility power (not explicitly disclosed), a circuit breaker type of the utility power (circuit breaker setting 215, fig. 2), or a circuit breaker rating of the utility power (“circuit breaker set rating,,” para 0049).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 2 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Shanmugam teaches further comprising load sharing circuitry (battery boost converter module, fig. 2; includes a processor 202, which is construed as the claimed “circuitry”) configured to control a balance of power input from the utility power (Pin_lim, fig. 3B; power of the AC input, paras 0064-0065) and the one or more batteries (Pbat, fig. 3B; para 0065; the battery boost converter module controls the balance of power provided by the battery relative to the power from the AC main input, fig. 3B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ihde et al. (US-20180214971-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Walker teaches wherein the battery monitor (battery pack 474 battery pack interface 472, fig. 4A) is configured to determine the at least one of the one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“the battery pack communicates a 20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111).
Walker does not explicitly disclose wherein the battery monitor comprises battery test circuitry configured to test the one or more batteries.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Ihde teaches wherein the battery monitor comprises battery test circuitry (“the controller 154 can include a charger control output in electrical communication with a charger control input,” para 0039; the charger control output is construed as including a circuit because it is electrical communication with the energy storage device 168, fig. 3) configured to test the one or more batteries (“recharging can occur automatically, based on transmission of a test signal and receipt of a feedback signal indicating the energy storage device 168 is in need of a charge,” para 0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker, in view of the teachings of Ihde, where the battery pack interface 472, as taught by Walker, included a charger control output, as taught by Ihde, so that a test signal could be transmitted to the batteries to receive a feedback signal indicative of an actual mode of operation for the batteries, so that an appropriate level of power for the device ccould be determined (Ihde, para 0009).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Knoener et al. (US-20210370430-A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Walker in view of Koh as set forth above regarding claim 1 partially teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Walker teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A) is configured to: determine, based on the determined one or more properties of the one or more batteries (20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111), supported values (“TLEFT< TWELD;” “YES,” fig. 9B; para 0113) of the one or more parameters (“user-set welding current,” para 0111) and unsupported values (TLEFT> TWELD; “NO,” fig. 9B; para 0113) of the one or more parameters (“user-set welding current,” para 0111); and control the power conversion circuitry based on the received values of the one or more parameters (“The controller 400 drive the welding circuit 465 to perform a welding tasks,” para 0093; construed such that the user-set welding current is used to provide power to the welding circuit 465 if there is sufficient charge in the battery). Additionally, Koh teaches control circuitry configured to: receive supported values of the one or more parameters (“output current,” para 0038; the desired output current is received via the current input section 114, fig. 3) via the user interface (panel 113, fig. 3).
Walker does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to: display the supported values of the one or more parameters and the unsupported values of the one or more parameters via the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Knoener teaches wherein the control circuitry (control circuitry 112 and 134, fig. 1C) is configured to: display the supported values of the one or more parameters (range of values 90 for the current, fig. 2A) and the unsupported values of the one or more parameters (extension 92, fig. 2A; “an extension range, which exceeds a current value or level 94 determined as a maximum current value for the operational range (e.g., calculated based on primary input current and/or a predetermined value or threshold),” para 0071) via the user interface (graphical interface 58, fig. 2A).
Knoener, fig. 2A
PNG
media_image4.png
426
890
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 Walker/Koh, in view of the teachings of Knoener, by using the graphical interface 58, as taught by Knoener, for the current input section 114, as taught by Koh, which was based on the range of acceptable current values for ensuring TLEFT< TWELD, as taught by Walker in fig. 9B, in order to use a graphical interface for the amperage current level that is easy to understand and that allows a user to know how much margin they have to based one or more thresholds (Knoener, paras 0021-0022).
Regarding claim 12, Walker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to: determine one or more alternative parameters based on the welding capacity; and output the one or more alternative parameters via the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Knoener teaches wherein the control circuitry (control circuitry 112 and 134, fig. 1C) is configured to: determine one or more alternative parameters based on the welding capacity (range of values 90 for the current, fig. 2A; “calculated based on primary input current and/or a predetermined value or threshold,” para 0071); and output the one or more alternative parameters via the user interface (graphical interface 58, fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker/Koh, in view of the teachings of Knoener, by using the graphical interface 58, as taught by Knoener, for the current input section 114, as taught by Koh, which was based on the range of acceptable current values for ensuring TLEFT< TWELD, as taught by Walker in fig. 9B, in order to use a graphical interface for the amperage current level that is easy to understand and that allows a user to know how much margin they have to based one or more thresholds (Knoener, paras 0021-0022).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lowther et al. (US-20250178111-A1, effective filing date of 17 June 2022).
Regarding claim 14, Walker teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to calculate a quantity of welding that can be performed in terms of an electrode to be used for a welding operation according to the one or more parameters, and display the quantity of welding in the terms of the electrode.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Lowther teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 104, fig. 2) is configured to calculate a quantity of welding that can be performed in terms of an electrode to be used for a welding operation according to the one or more parameters (“estimate a number of electrodes to weld (i.e., how many more electrodes can be welded based on the current battery SOC),” para 0057), and display the quantity of welding in the terms of the electrode (information 606, fig. 6: “Number of Electrodes”).
Lowther, fig. 6
PNG
media_image5.png
727
607
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 Walker, in view of the teachings of Lowther, by using the information provided by the battery pack, as taught by Walker, to estimate a number of electrodes to weld and to display that number, as taught by Lowther, in order to estimate a number of electrodes to weld that is based on the length of time the batteries can support the welding operation, which is useful information for a weld operator (Lowther, para 0057).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Lowther as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Lowther teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 104, fig. 2) is configured to display the quantity of welding that can be performed as at least one of: pounds of wire electrode (not explicitly disclosed), inches of wire electrode (not explicitly disclosed), a number of stick electrodes (information 606, fig. 6: “number of stick electrodes,” para 0086), or inches of welding (not explicitly disclosed).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) and Knoener et al. (US-20210370430-A1).
Regarding claim 16, Walker teaches a welding system (portable welder 100, fig. 1), comprising:
a power input (power input unit 470, fig. 4A) configured to receive input power from one or more batteries (battery cells in the battery pack 474, fig. 4A; para 0094);
power conversion circuitry (welding circuit 465, fig. 4A) configured to convert the input power from the one or more batteries (“power received through the battery pack interface 472,” para 0094) to welding power (power produced for welding in the welding circuit 465, fig. 4A; para 0093);
a user interface (interface 900, fig. 9A);
a battery monitor (battery pack 474 battery pack interface 472, fig. 4A) configured to determine (the interface 472 “communicatively connects” with the battery pack 474, para 0094) one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“the battery pack communicates a 20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111); and
control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A; “plurality of electrical and electronic components,” para 0091) configured to:
determine, based on the determined one or more properties of the one or more batteries (“20% charge, is 216 Wh battery pack, and has a nominal voltage of 72 Volts,” para 0111), supported values (“TLEFT< TWELD;” “YES,” fig. 9B; para 0113) of the one or more parameters (“user-set welding current,” para 0111) and unsupported values (TLEFT> TWELD; “NO,” fig. 9B; para 0113) of the one or more parameters (“user-set welding current,” para 0111); and
control the power conversion circuitry based on the received values of the one or more parameters (“The controller 400 drive the welding circuit 465 to perform a welding tasks,” para 0093; construed such that the user-set welding current is used to provide power to the welding circuit 465 if there is sufficient charge in the battery).
Walker does not explicitly disclose a user interface configured to input one or more parameters for the welding power; control circuitry configured to: display the supported values of the one or more parameters via the user interface; receive selected ones of the supported values of the one or more parameters via the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Koh teaches a user interface (panel 113, fig. 3) configured to input one or more parameters (current input section 114, fig. 3) for the welding power (“output current,” para 0038); control circuitry (circuit section 111, fig. 2) configured to: receive selected ones of the supported values of the one or more parameters (“output current,” para 0038; the desired output current is received via the current input section 114, fig. 3) via the user interface (panel 113, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker, in view of the teachings of Koh, by using a current input section 114, as taught by Koh, on the interface 900, as taught by Walker, in order to enable a user to set the welding machine output current, for the advantage of providing usage information for a battery welder that is easy to carry, facilitates mobile work, and improves usability of the welder (Koh, paras 0006 and 0038).
Walker/Koh do not explicitly disclose control circuitry configured to: display the supported values of the one or more parameters via the user interface.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Knoener teaches wherein the control circuitry (control circuitry 112 and 134, fig. 1C) is configured to: display the supported values of the one or more parameters (range of values 90 for the current, fig. 2A) via the user interface (graphical interface 58, fig. 2A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker/Koh, in view of the teachings of Knoener, by using the graphical interface 58, as taught by Knoener, for the current input section 114, as taught by Koh, which was based on the range of acceptable current values for ensuring TLEFT< TWELD, as taught by Walker in fig. 9B, in order to use a graphical interface for the amperage current level that is easy to understand and that allows a user to know how much margin they have to based one or more thresholds (Knoener, paras 0021-0022).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (US-20210213553-A1) in view of Koh et al. (KR-102059362-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description) and Knoener et al. (US-20210370430-A1) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Shanmugam et al. (US-20250187095-A1, effective filing date of 29 June 2022).
Regarding claim 17, Walker teaches the power conversion circuitry (welding circuit 465, fig. 4A) configured to convert the utility power (“The wall adapter fits into a battery location located on the portable welder 100, then may be plugged into the wall to allow the portable welder 100 to be run off of AC power from the AC/DC power adapter,” para 0075) to the welding power (power produced for welding in the welding circuit 465, fig. 4A; para 0093).
Walker does not explicitly disclose further comprising a utility power monitor configured to determine whether utility power is input to the power input and, when the utility power is input to the power input, to determine one or more properties of the utility power.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hybrid welding systems, Shanmugam teaches further comprising a utility power monitor (rectifier 122, fig. 1) configured to determine whether utility power is input to the power input (“rectifier 122 supplies an indication of AC mains input voltage 161 to battery boost converter control module 167,” para 0019; fig. 2) and, when the utility power is input to the power input, to determine one or more properties of the utility power (determine range of the voltage input, steps 314 and 322, fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Walker, in view of the teachings of Shanmugam, by using a battery boost converter and a main power board 120 with a rectifier 122, as taught by Shanmugam, that provided the AC input voltage for the wall adapter to the power input unit 470, as taught by Walker, in order to use an adaptive battery control process that optimizes the battery power output, regulating the AC mains input current, for the advantage of delivering a higher power output during a hybrid boost mode (Shanmugam, para 0020).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 17 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Walker teaches wherein the control circuitry (controller 400, fig. 4A) is configured to determine the supported values (“TLEFT< TWELD;” “YES,” fig. 9B; para 0113) and the unsupported values (TLEFT> TWELD; “NO,” fig. 9B; para 0113). Additionally, Shanmugam teaches the one or more properties of the utility power (Walker teaches calculating the runtime prediction based on the voltage and current of the battery; in Shanmugam, Vbat and Ibat in fig. 3B are calculated based on the Vinput in fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 17 teaches the invention of claim 19. Specifically, Shanmugam teaches wherein the one or more properties of the utility power comprise at least one of a source type of the utility power (type of voltage, operations 314 and 322, fig. 3A), an input voltage of the utility power (AC mains input voltage 161, fig. 2), a number of phases of the utility power (not explicitly disclosed), a circuit breaker type of the utility power (circuit breaker setting 215, fig. 2), or a circuit breaker rating of the utility power (“circuit breaker set rating,,” para 0049).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Walker in view of Koh and Shanmugam as set forth above regarding claim 17 teaches the invention of claim 20. Specifically, Shanmugam teaches further comprising load sharing circuitry (battery boost converter module, fig. 2; includes a processor 202, which is construed as the claimed “circuitry”) configured to control a balance of power input from the utility power (Pin_lim, fig. 3B; power of the AC input, paras 0064-0065) and the one or more batteries (Pbat, fig. 3B; para 0065; the battery boost converter module controls the balance of power provided by the battery relative to the power from the AC main input, fig. 3B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schartner et al. (US-20180123370-A1) teach power management for AC and battery power sources.
Knoener et al. (US-20250353098-A1) and Shellabarger et al. (US-20250367745-A1) teach copending applications that are similar to the Instant Application. The examiner reviewed the claim scope of the claims in these applications relative to the claim scope in the Instant Application and determined that the respective claim scopes are different enough such that double patenting rejections would not be warranted.
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 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights