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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a profile disposed at disposed at the rear of the contact tip” should read “a profile disposed at the rear of the contact tip”. 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rear of the contact tip" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to their dependency from 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giese (US 2004/0026394).
Regarding claim 1, Giese teaches a welding torch (28), comprising a contact tip (50) having a rear outer surface (as shown in Fig. 3-7); and a gas diffuser (combination of 48 and 52 comprising 64) configured to receive the rear outer surface within a gas flow path (flow path of gas 25) on an interior of the gas diffuser (as shown in Fig. 3-7); wherein the rear surface comprises a connection portion (as shown in Fig. 4 below) and a backward taper (as shown in Fig. 4 below) disposed backward of the connecting portion (as shown in Fig. 4 below); and wherein the contact tip further comprises a profile (shoulder 60) disposed at disposed at the rear of the contact tip, the profile comprises one or more features (step formed by shoulder 60) adaptively configured to interface with one or more corresponding features or structures (inner front portion of 64) in the gas diffuser (as shown in Fig. 5).
[AltContent: textbox (Backward taper)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connection portion)]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
265
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giese fails to disclose wherein the taper is a forward taper.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a forward taper since the applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the backward taper and straight connection portion of Giese. POSITA would have known that changing the straight portion to also include a forward taper portion would have reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as stress concentration reduction and increase wear resistance.
Regarding claim 2, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the gas flow path comprises an axial gas channel (80) configured to direct the gas over the rear outer surface of the contact tip (para. 0030; as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 3, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the gas diffuser includes a seat (protrusions of annular portion 74 between gas delivery holes 80; as shown in Fig. 6) configured to receive the contact tip within the gas diffuser (as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 4, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the seat is defined by a plurality of teeth (protrusions of annular portion 74 between gas delivery holes 80; as shown in Fig. 6), wherein each tooth includes a shelf (inner surface of annular portion 74 that contacts shoulder 60 of contact tip 50), and wherein the contact tip includes a shoulder (60) that interfaces with the shelf of each tooth (as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 5, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the gas diffuser comprises a nose (as shown in Fig. 4 below) that encircles a hollow interior (as shown in Fig. 4 below), wherein the teeth extend from an interior surface of the nose into the hollow interior (as shown in Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
347
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the gas flow path comprises a plurality of axial gas channels (80) disposed on the interior surface of the nose (as shown in Fig. 4 above), between the teeth (as shown in Fig. 6), and wherein the plurality of axial gas channels are configured to direct the gas over the rear outer surface of the contact tip (as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 7, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein a diameter of the hollow interior is larger at the axial gas channels than at the teeth (as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 8, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the rear outer surface of the contact tip includes a deflector surface (60) that is configured to guide the gas away from an axis of the contact tip (as shown in Fig. 4, 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 9, Giese teaches the welding torch as set forth above, wherein the gas diffuser includes a chamfer (as shown in Fig. 4 below) that is configured to provide clearance for the deflector surface of the contact tip (as shown in Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (chamfer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
265
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Applicant submits that claim 1 is patentable over Giese, at least in view of the amendments made hereto. In this regard, Applicant notes that in rejecting claim 1, the Final Action equates the recited "contact tip" with Giese's contact tip 50. However, as amended, claim 1 now requires that the recited "contact tip" incorporates contact tip further comprises a profile disposed at disposed at the rear of the contact tip, the profile comprises one or more features adaptively configured to interface with one or more corresponding features or structures in the gas diffuser. As such, the Examiner must show that Giese teaches or otherwise suggests that its contact tip 50 incorporates such profile.” on remarks page 6, lines 26-27, and page 7, lines 1-7. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Geise teaches wherein the contact tip (50) further comprises a profile (shoulder 60) disposed at the rear of the contact tip (as shown in Fig. 5), the profile comprises one or more features (step formed by shoulder 60) adaptively configured to interface with one or more corresponding features or structures (inner front portion of 64) in the gas diffuser (as shown in Fig. 5).
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-9, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
12/24/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761