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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 27, 29-30 and 41-44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27, “heat affect zone” should be rewritten as “heat affected zone”;
Claim 29, “a workpiece thicknesses” is grammatically incorrect;
Claim 30, “cause the processor, to, based on … determining”, the “determining” should read “determine”;
Claims 41 and 42, “welding interface device as defined in claim 40”, but claim 40 recites a welding system;
Claim 43 recites “welding interface device as defined in claim 25”, but claim 25 recites a welding system; and
Claim 44, the “based on” step should use the word “determine” instead of “determining”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over various claims of U.S. Patent No.12,168,269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Pending claim 25 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since 16 recites feedback-based control using a boundary condition to control the weld. In the opinion of the examiner, comparing the feedback information to the boundary condition and adjusting a welding parameter would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 26 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites determining a thermal characteristic of the workpiece, and since claim 2 identifies the thermal characteristics, selecting one of them would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 27 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites determining a chemical characteristic of the workpiece, and since claim 3 identifies the chemical characteristics, selecting one of them would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 28 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites determining an electrical characteristic of the workpiece, and since claim 4 identifies the electrical characteristics, selecting one of them would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 29 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites determining a physical characteristic of the workpiece, and since claim 4 identifies the physical characteristics, selecting one of them would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 30 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 6 since patented claim 6 recites using physical characteristics of a filler material to determine a thermal, electrical, or chemical characteristic of the filler material. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 31 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 7 since patented claim 7 recites the same physical characteristics of the filler material recited in claim 31. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 32 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 8 since patented claim 8 recites the same electrical characteristics of the filler material recited in claim 32. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 33 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 9 since patented claim 9 recites the same thermal characteristics of the filler material recited in claim 33. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 34 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 10 since patented claim 10 recites the same chemical characteristics of the filler material recited in claim 34. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 35 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 11 since patented claim 11 recites the same welding processes and material transfer modes recited in claim 35. Adding the feedback-based weld control claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 36 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based welding control using a boundary condition, and since claim 12 identifies the same first limit recited in claim 36, using that first limit would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 37 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based welding control using a boundary condition, and since claim 13 identifies the same filler based first limit recited in claim 37, using that first limit would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 38 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based welding control using a boundary condition, and since claim 14 identifies the same second limit recited in claim 38, using that first limit would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 39 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based welding control using a boundary condition, and since claim 15 identifies the same lower and upper limits recited in claim 39, using those limits would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 40 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based determination of a characteristic, changing the boundary condition based on that characteristic, and controlling the welding would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 41 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 17 since patented claim 17 recites the same second boundary condition based on the determined characteristic recited in claim 41, and using that second boundary condition would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 42 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 18 since patented claim 18 recites the same types of feedback information recited in claim 42, and using one of those feedback types would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 43 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 20 since patented claim 20 recites the same external computing system future as recited in claim 43, and adding the feedback-based weld control already claimed in claim 16 would have been an obvious variation.
Pending claim 44 is adequately disclosed by patented claim 16 since patented claim 16 recites feedback-based welding control using a boundary condition, and since claims 6 and 13 identify the same filler material characteristic and filler-based boundary condition recited in claim 44, using those filler-based features would have been an obvious variation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 25, 29, 36-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560).
As per claim 25, ‘560 discloses a welding system (e.g., See ‘560; [0004], which discloses a welding system), comprising:
a processor (e.g., See ‘560; [0069], which discloses a controller including a processor); and
a machine readable storage device comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (e.g., See ‘560; [0069], which discloses a memory storing instructions executable by the processor):
based on physical characteristics of a workpiece, determine at least one of a thermal characteristic of the workpiece, an electrical characteristic of the workpiece, or a chemical characteristic of the workpiece (e.g., See ‘560; [0060], which discloses a temperature contour for a type of workpiece material);
determine a boundary condition associated with the workpiece based on the at least one of the thermal characteristic, the electrical characteristic, or the chemical characteristic (e.g., See ‘560; [0059] – [0060], which disclose a tolerance based on the temperature contour for the workpiece);
during a welding process, automatically adjust one or more parameters of the welding process based on comparing feedback information to the boundary condition (e.g., See ‘560; [0066] and [0093], which disclose automatically adjusting a welding parameter in real time when a detected temperature does not meet a tolerance); and
control the welding process based on the adjusted one or more parameters (e.g., See ‘560; [0092], which discloses providing an adjustment command to modify the welding parameters).
As per claim 29, ‘560 further discloses that the physical characteristics comprise at least one of a workpiece material, work piece condition, weld size, joint preparation, weld joint, room for expansion and contraction within the welding fixture and weldment, a workpiece thicknesses, a work piece cleanliness, a joint type, a weld position, or a gap width (e.g., See ‘560; [0060], which discloses that the physical characteristics comprise a type of workpiece material).
As per claim 36, ‘560 further discloses that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the boundary condition by determining a first limit on the welding process based on the at least one of the thermal characteristic, the electrical characteristic, or the chemical characteristic, wherein the first limit is determined to reduce a likelihood of a welding anomaly in the weld (e.g., See ‘560; [0036], [0053] and [0060], which discloses determining a first limit as a minimum temperature of the tolerance based on the temperature contour, where the first limit reduces weld defects caused by inconsistent heat input).
As per claim 37, ‘560 further discloses that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the boundary condition by determining the first limit based on at least one of a thermal characteristic of a filler material for the weld to be performed, an electrical characteristic of the filler material, or a chemical characteristic of the filler material (e.g., See ‘560; [0039], which discloses determining the first limit of the tolerance based on a composition of a consumable electrode).
As per claim 38, ‘560 further discloses that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the boundary condition by determining a second limit on the welding process (e.g., See ‘560; [0053], which discloses determining a second limit as a maximum temperature of the tolerance).
As per claim 39, ‘560 further discloses that the first limit is a lower limit on a parameter of the welding process and the second limit is an upper limit on the same parameter of the welding process (e.g., See ‘560; [0053] and [0072], which disclose the first limit as the minimum temperature and the second limit as the maximum temperature for a workpiece temperature).
As per claim 40, ‘560 further discloses that the processor, during creation of the weld:
determines, based on the feedback information, at least one of a second thermal characteristic of the workpiece, a second electrical characteristic of the workpiece, a second chemical characteristic of the workpiece, a thermal characteristic of a filler material used for the weld, an electrical characteristic of the filler material, or a chemical characteristic of the filler material (e.g., See ‘560; [0061], which discloses, during the welding process, determining an average temperature of the workpiece based on two or more temperature readings);
changes the boundary condition based on the determined characteristic (e.g., See ‘560; [0070], which discloses using temperature readings to generate or supplement the tolerance data); and
controls the welding process based on the changed boundary condition (e.g., See ‘560; [0070], which discloses controlling the welding process based on the supplemented tolerance data).
As per claim 42, ‘560 further discloses that the feedback information comprises at least one of a weld voltage, a weld current, a weld power, an enthalpy, a preheating voltage, a preheating current, a preheating power, a penetration depth, a puddle dimension, a workpiece temperature, a short circuit duration, a short circuit frequency, a short circuit clear current, a travel speed, light spectrum to determine wire/weld pool chemistry, torch angle, CTWD, or a chemical analysis of a fume emitted from the weld (e.g., See ‘560; [0041], which discloses the detected temperature as an actual temperature of the workpiece).
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.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Yang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0355902 A1 (‘902).
As per claim 27, ‘560 does not specifically disclose determining the chemical characteristic by determining allow chemistry based on the physical characteristics.
‘902 discloses this missing feature by determining a chemical composition of a base material forming the workpiece (e.g., See ‘902; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘902 into ‘560 for the purpose of using chemical composition to set a temperature limit that better matches the workpiece, thereby controlling heat more accurately and reducing weld defects.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Matsuyama, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0053555 A1 (‘555).
As per claim 28, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the electrical characteristic of the workpiece by determining at least one of electrical resistivity, emissivity, oxidation resistivity, or magnetic susceptibility.
’555 discloses the missing feature by disclosing mean resistivity of the workpiece being obtained as a physical property for the welding calculation (e.g., See ‘555; [0075] and [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘555 into ‘560 for the purpose of using workpiece resistivity to improve weld temperature estimates, thereby improving heat control and reducing weld defects.
Claims 30, 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Hoeller, U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2020/0086413 A1 (‘413).
As per claim 30, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to, based on the physical characteristics of a filler material for the weld, determine at least one of a thermal characteristic of the filler material, an electrical characteristic of the filler material, or a chemical characteristic of the filler material.
‘413 discloses the missing feature by disclosing using a known welding wire diameter to improve recognition of a composition of the filler metal (e.g., See ‘413; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘413 into ‘560 for the purpose of using filler wire diameter to determine composition so welding settings can match the filler material, thereby improving weld quality.
As per claim 31, ‘560 in view of ‘413 further disclose that the physical characteristics of the filler material comprise at least one of a wire composition, a wire base metal, a wire filler material, or a wire diameter (e.g., See ‘413; [0002], which discloses that the physical characteristics comprise the welding wire diameter).
As per claim 34, ‘560 in view of ‘413 further disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the chemical characteristic of the filler material by determining at least one of grain structure, nano-particle content, ductility, columnar strength, a quantity of impurities in the filler wire, a type of impurities in the filler wire, hydrogen solubility, alloy chemistry, and base chemistry (e.g., See ‘413; [0064], which discloses determining the chemical characteristics as a composition of the filler metal).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Hoeller, U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2020/0086413 A1 (‘413), as applied to claim 30, from above, in further view of Perpetua, WO 2007027117 A1 (‘117).
As per claim 32, ‘560 in view of ‘413 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the electrical characteristic of the filler material by determining at least one of electrical resistivity of the filler wire, electrical resistivity of a cored wire sheath, electrical resistivity of a wire core material, cross-section proportion of the wire sheath, cross-section proportion of the wire core material, emissivity, oxidation resistivity, or magnetic susceptibility.
‘117 discloses the missing features by disclosing determining the electrical characteristics as the electrical resistivity of the welding wire (e.g., See ‘117; [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘117 into ‘560 in view of ‘413 for the purpose of using electrical resistivity to improve automatic filler wire identification, thereby selecting welding settings suited to the detected wire and reducing setup errors.
Claims 26, 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Ogata, EP 2995416 A1 (‘416).
As per claim 26, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the thermal characteristic of the workpiece by determining at least one of thermal conductivity, shrinkage rate, cooling rate, melting temperature, solidification temperature, solidification time, vaporization temperature, vaporization time, or a thermal expansion coefficient.
‘416 discloses the missing features by disclosing calculating thermal conductivity from information on the base material (e.g., See ‘416; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘416 into ‘560 for the purpose of using material properties to better set welding temperature limits, thereby improving heat control and reducing weld defects.
As per claim 30, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to, based on the physical characteristics of a filler material for the weld, determining at least one of a thermal characteristic of the filler material, an electrical characteristic of the filler material, or a chemical characteristic of the filler material.
‘416 discloses the missing features by disclosing using welding wire material components to calculate thermal conductivity (e.g., See ‘416; [0029] and [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘416 into ‘560 for the purpose of using wire material information to better model heat flow during welding, thereby improving heat control and reducing weld defects.
As per claim 33, ‘560 in view of ‘416 further discloses that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the thermal characteristic of the filler material by determining at least one of a solidification temperature, a melting temperature, a vaporization temperature, thermal conductivity, a shrinkage rate, a cooling rate, or a thermal expansion coefficient (e.g., See ‘416; [0032], which discloses determining the thermal characteristics as thermal conductivity).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Albrecht, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0143436 A1 (‘436).
As per claim 35, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine the welding process and weld material transfer mode by including at least one of a Controlled Short Circuit, an alternating current (AC) wire-fed process, or a pulse process as at least part of the determined welding process.
‘436 discloses the missing features by disclosing a process selection module that selects a controlled short circuit welding process (e.g., See ‘436; [0046] and [0059] – [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘436 into ‘560 for the purpose of automatically choosing a welding process suited to the weld, thereby reducing setup errors and improving weld quality.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 40, from above, in view of MARCHIONE, U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2015/0076128 A1 (‘128).
As per claim 41(40), ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine a second boundary condition based on the determined characteristic.
‘128 discloses the missing features by disclosing determining a temperature differential from temperature signals and setting a threshold for welding parameters based on the temperature differential (e.g., See ‘128; [0024] – [0026], where the temperature differential corresponds to the determined second thermal characteristic and the threshold corresponds to the second boundary condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘128 into ‘560 for the purpose of keeping welding parameters within safe limits, thereby preventing overheating and improving weld quality.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0015560 A1 (‘560), as applied to claim 25, from above, in view of Albrecht, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0036288 A1 (‘288).
As per claim 43, ‘560 does not specifically disclose that the instructions are configured to cause the processor to determine at least one of the thermal characteristic of the workpiece, the electrical characteristic of the workpiece, the chemical characteristic of the workpiece, or the boundary condition by communicating the information describing the physical characteristics of the workpiece to an external computing system and receiving the at least one of the thermal characteristic of the workpiece, the electrical characteristic of the workpiece, the chemical characteristic of the workpiece, or the boundary condition from the external computing system.
‘288 discloses the missing features by disclosing transmitting workpiece composition and thickness to a welding knowledge provider and receiving a welding plan having a voltage range or current range (e.g., See ‘288; [0020], [0027], [0032] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘288 into ‘560 for the purpose of using remote welding information to select suitable welding limits, thereby simplifying setup and improving weld quality.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0273612 A1 (‘612), in view of Albrecht, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0036288 A1 (‘288).
As per claim 44, ‘612 in view of ‘288 discloses a welding interface device (e.g. See ‘612; [0126], which discloses a welding power supply having a user interface and CPU/controller), comprising:
a user interface device (e.g., See ‘612; [0126], which discloses the user interface coupled to the CPU/controller);
a processor (e.g., See ‘612; [0126], which discloses the CPU/controller); and
a machine-readable storage device comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (although ‘612 discloses the utilization of the CPU/controller, ‘612 does not specifically disclose a machine readable storage device comprising machine readable instructions executable by the processor. ‘288 discloses the missing feature by disclosing a processor that executes machine readable instructions stored in random access memory, read only memory, or a mass storage device (e.g., See ‘288; [0105]):
based on physical characteristics of a filler wire to be used to perform a weld, determining at least one of a thermal characteristic of the filler wire, an electrical characteristic of the filler wire, or a chemical characteristic of the filler wire (e.g., See ‘612; [0137], which discloses setting a desired temperature of the filler wire based on input data including electrode type);
determine a boundary condition associated with the filler wire based on the at least one of the thermal characteristic, the electrical characteristic, or the chemical characteristic (e.g., See ‘612; [0126] – [0128], which discloses using input data including the desired wire temperature to determine operational setpoints or ranges);
during a welding process, automatically adjust one or more parameters of the welding process based on comparing feedback information to the boundary condition (e.g., See ‘612; [0131], which discloses comparing detected voltage to a desired operational range and automatically adjusting the output); and
control the welding process based on the adjusted one or more parameters (e.g., See ‘612; [0131], which discloses controlling the welding process based on the adjusted output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made have incorporated the teachings of ‘288 into ‘612 for the purpose of implementing the welding controller with stored machine-readable instructions, thereby enabling repeatable execution of the automatic welding functions.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 2013/0168375 A1, which discloses automatically setting welding parameters from workpiece and wire information and using welding feedback to tune the process;
(2) US 2010/0326962 A1, which discloses monitoring weld temperature, composition, and geometry, comparing weld conditions to desired ranges, and automatically adjusting welding parameters; and
(3) US 2011/0172796 A1, which discloses using workpiece design and material properties to predict weld capabilities and recommend welding process settings for a planned weld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 September 12, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights