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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 06/15/2025., claims 1-27 are pending.
Title of the Invention
Claims 1-27 directs to “a hybrid welding system”, but not “method”. Thus, the following title is suggested: “A Hybrid Welding System with Overall Electrical Insulation and Thermal Conductivity and Cooling”.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pub.para.0002, “ U.S. Pat. No. 7,235,785” should be “ U.S. Pat. No. 7,235,758”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “MIG” should be “Metal Inert Gas”.
Claim 1, line 5, “their respective axes” should be “respective axes of said non-consumable and consumable electrodes”
Claim 2, line 3, “its length” should be “a length of said cathode”
Claim 26, line 4, “said electrical arcs” should be “said arcs”.
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 2-8, 13, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 2, being depended from claim 1, recites the limitations "said gas shielding nozzle" and “said tips” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because claim 1 does not comprise these limitations. It is unclear if these limitations "said gas shielding nozzle" and “said tips” correspond to “gas shielding nozzle” and “tips” recited in claim 12. If so, claim 2 should be depended upon claim 12.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “said cooling means comprises a channel … extending from inlet of said thermal cooling channel along full length of said cathode” in lines 3-4 which is unclear. As shown in figures 3B, 4, 8, 11A of the current application, the channel 320 extend from its inlet along a portion of the cathode of 305, not “full length of the cathode” 305. See fig.3B of the current application below:
PNG
media_image1.png
361
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, by claiming “along full length of said cathode”, it conflicts with the current disclosure and make the claim is unclear. For examination purposes, based on the figures 3B, 4, 8, 11A of the current application, the above limitation is construed as “said cooling means comprises a channel … extending from inlet of said thermal cooling channel along a portion of the length of said cathode”.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "said shielding cover” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim and it is unclear if "said shielding cover” corresponds to "said gas shielding nozzle" previously recited in claim 2. For examination purposes, "said shielding cover” is construed as any cover.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “arcs of said plasma welding unit and MIG welding unit” in lines 2-3 is unclear if it corresponds to the “arcs initiated from said electrodes” previously recited in claim 1. If so, “arcs of said plasma welding unit and MIG welding unit” should be “the arcs of said plasma welding unit and MIG welding unit”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “two or more magnetic coils placed between said plasma welding unit and said MIG welding unit” in lines 1-2 which is unclear. As disclosed in pub. Para.0039 of the current application, “ Horns 610 are located between the plasma and MIG 200 welding units” and “ two or more magnetic coils 600 that are placed on the side of the Plasma unit 300” The horns 610 and the coils 600 are two different elements and only the horns 610 are located between the plasma and MIG 200 welding units (See fig.10B of the current application). Thus, by claiming “two or more magnetic coils (600) placed between said plasma welding unit (300) and said MIG welding unit (200)”, it conflicts with the current application and makes the claim unclear.
Claim 23 recites the term “narrower” in last line. It is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrower” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear the things it is being compared to.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “said magnetic coils are two magnetic horns” is unclear because it conflicts with the current application, based on para.0039, figures 9A and 10B, the magnetic coils 600 are different from the horns 610. It is unclear how the magnetic coils 600 are two magnetic horns 610 as recited in claim 24. In addition, the specification does not clearly explain the structure of “two magnetic horns” and how the coils 600 can become the “magnetic horns”. The term “two magnetic horns” has no well-recognized meaning. Thus, for examination purposes, the limitation “said magnetic coils are two magnetic horns” are construed as “said magnetic coils”.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "said weld” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 25 is rejected by being depended upon claim 23.
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 Ignatchenko (US20050199593A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ignatchenko discloses
A hybrid welding system (welding system, see abstract) comprising a plasma welding unit (Plasmatron) (204, see fig.2 and para.0043) and a MIG welding unit (202, see fig.2 and para.0043), said plasma unit (204, see fig.2) comprising a non-consumable electrode (“ non-consumable electrode 204”, see para.0043), said MIG welding unit (202) comprising a consumable electrode (“consumable electrode 202”),wherein said non-consumable (204) and consumable electrodes (202) are positioned relative each other so that their respective axes (206 and 208, see fig.2) form an angle α (See acute angle α in fig.2) so that arcs (212 and 214, see fig.2) initiated from said electrodes (202 and 204) intersect a workpiece plane (220, see fig.2) to define an impingement point distance D (See distance D in fig.2).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko
Regarding claim 12, In the embodiment shown in figure 2, Ignatchenko does not expressly disclose a gas shielding nozzle forming a confined space around tips of said non-consumable and consumable electrodes, said gas shielding nozzle accommodates and covers said tips and is configured to keep said angle a between said electrodes inside said confined space and said impingement point distance D.
However, in figure 3, Ignatchenko further discloses a gas shielding nozzle (316, see fig.3 and para.003: “The MIG process, also known as Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), incorporates automatic feeding of a continuous consumable electrode that is shielded from the atmosphere by an externally supplied gas”. Thus, the shielding nozzle 316 comprises the consumable electrode that is shielded by gas so that the shielding nozzle 316 is construed as the “gas shielding nozzle”) forming a confined space around tips of said non-consumable (309, see fig.3 )and consumable electrodes (314, see fig.3), said gas shielding nozzle ((316, see fig.3 and para.003) accommodates and covers said tips (tips of 309 and 314) and is configured to keep said angle α between said electrodes (angle α between 309 and 314) inside said confined space (see confined space in annotated fig.3 below ) and said impingement point distance D (See fig.3).
PNG
media_image2.png
451
788
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.3 of Ignatchenko
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the embodiment as shown in fig.3 of Ignatchenko to have “a gas shielding nozzle forming a confined space around tips of said non-consumable and consumable electrodes, said gas shielding nozzle accommodates and covers said tips and is configured to keep said angle a between said electrodes inside said confined space and said impingement point distance D”. Doing so allows to supply the gas to the weld effectively in order to protect the molten weld pool from atmospheric contamination.
Regarding claim 13, Ignatchenko further discloses said gas shielding nozzle (316, see fig.3) is configured to keep a shielding gas in one region (consumable electrode, see para.003: “The MIG process, also known as Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), incorporates automatic feeding of a continuous consumable electrode that is shielded from the atmosphere by an externally supplied gas”) where arcs of said plasma welding unit and MIG welding unit are combined in one welding torch (200/300, see fig.2-3).
Regarding claim 14, Ignatchenko further discloses gas used in said gas shielding nozzle is selected from Argon, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) and combination thereof (see para.004: “… for example in an argon-rich shielding gas”).
Claims 2-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of Peter (EP0168810A1, cited in 06/15/025 IDS)
Regarding claim 2, Ignatchenko further discloses
said plasma welding unit (304, see fig.3) comprises thermal cooling means (311, see fig.3), said cooling means (311, see fig.3) comprises a channel surrounding said cathode (309) along its length (see fig.3) and extending from inlet of said thermal cooling channel (inlet of 311) along full length of said cathode (309, see fig.3 and see 112(b) rejections above) down to said gas shielding nozzle (316, see fig.3) surrounding said tips of said cathode (309) and MIG electrode (314, see fig.3) fluid (312, see fig.3) circulating inside said thermal cooling channel fluid (311, see fig.3),
welding takes place (see fig.3 and abstract) and concentrates highest amount of heat at highest temperature at said tip of said cathode (309) and said tip of said MIG welding unit (314, see fig.3), except a channel up to outlet of said thermal cooling channel.
Peter discloses Torch for plasma-MIG welding, comprising:
a channel (channel formed by 19 and 20) flows up to outlet (outlet of 20, see fig.1) of said thermal cooling channel (channel formed by 19 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the channel of Ignatchenko to flow up to outlet as taught by Peter. Doing so achieves the cooling effect as well as possible (See para.0015 of Peter).
Regarding claim 3, Ignatchenko further discloses said thermal cooling channel (311, see fig.3) is located inside said shielding cover (302, see fig.3. See 112b rejections above).
Regarding claim 4, Ignatchenko further discloses said thermal cooling channel (311) comprises a thermal cooling pass (311) surrounding said gas shielding nozzle (316, see fig.3, the channel 311 surrounds an upper portion of 316) , wherein said thermal cooling pass (311) is in fluid contact with said inlet (inlet of 311) and outlet (outlet of 311) of said thermal cooling channel (311, see fig.3).
Regarding claim 5,the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 4, except distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 20 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.3 of Ignatchenko), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ignatchenko in view of Peter teaches a certain distance of said cooling pass from said tips and having a specific distance of said cooling pass from said tips is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 20 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 20 mm”, in order to control the weld pool cooling rate and the heat-affected zone, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 4, except distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 10 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.3 of Ignatchenko), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ignatchenko in view of Peter teaches a certain distance of said cooling pass from said tips and having a specific distance of said cooling pass from said tips is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 10 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 10 mm”, in order to control the weld pool cooling rate and the heat-affected zone, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 4, except distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 5 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.3 of Ignatchenko), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ignatchenko in view of Peter teaches a certain distance of said cooling pass from said tips and having a specific distance of said cooling pass from said tips is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 5 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 5 mm”, in order to control the weld pool cooling rate and the heat-affected zone, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 4, except distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 3 mm.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.3 of Ignatchenko), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ignatchenko in view of Peter teaches a certain distance of said cooling pass from said tips and having a specific distance of said cooling pass from said tips is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 3 mm” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “distance of said cooling pass from said tips is lower than 3 mm”, in order to control the weld pool cooling rate and the heat-affected zone, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel is in the range of 0.5-5 L/min.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see fig.3 of Ignatchenko), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Ignatchenko in view of Peter teaches a certain flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel and having a specific certain flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the “flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel is in the range of 0.5-5 L/min” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case varying the “flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel is in the range of 0.5-5 L/min”, in order to control the weld pool cooling rate and the heat-affected zone, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except said flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel is 1.8 L/min.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify said flow range of said heat absorbing fluid inside said channel of Ignatchenko in view of Peter to be 1.8 L/min, in order to obtain a desired cooling at the tips of the electrodes, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Ignatchenko does not disclose said heat absorbing fluid is water.
Peter further discloses said heat absorbing fluid is water (See abstract of Peter).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the water of Peter for the fluid of Ignatchenko since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of providing cooling benefits.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of DONG (CN114700643A)
Regarding claim 15, Ignatchenko teaches certain flow rate of gas in said gas shielding nozzle (see para.0052 and 0055), except wherein flow rate of gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 0-200 liter/min.
Dong discloses a high-deposition low-heat-input plasma-double-wire bypass electric arc welding device and method, comprising:
flow rate of gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 0-200 liter/min (“flow rate of mixed shielding gas 14 8-40L/min”, see page 4, lines 18-19, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the “flow rate of gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 0-200 liter/min” as taught by Dong since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Doing so allows to control the gas flow so that the gas consistently protects the molten weld pool from atmospheric contamination while also supporting arc stability and weld quality.
Regarding claim 16,The Ignatchenko teaches certain flow rate of gas in said gas shielding nozzle (see para.0052 and 0055), except flow rate of said gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 15-30 litter/min.
Dong further discloses flow rate of said gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 15-30 litter/min (“flow rate of mixed shielding gas 14 8-40L/min”, see page 4, lines 18-19, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the “flow rate of said gas in said gas shielding nozzle is in the range of 15-30 litter/min” as taught by Dong since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Doing so allows to control the gas flow so that the gas consistently protects the molten weld pool from atmospheric contamination while also supporting arc stability and weld quality.
Claims 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of Hirth US 20230313720 A1
Regarding claim 17, Ignatchenko further teaches said plasma welding unit (304, see fig.3) comprises electrical insulation means (317, see fig.3 and para.0053) surrounding said cathode (309, see fig.3), except said electrical insulation means comprises a porous ceramic layer, said ceramic layer surrounding said cathode, and an electrically insulating filler inside pores of said ceramic layer.
Hirth discloses a current feed-through for an electrically heatable catalytic converter, comprising:
said electrical insulation means ( electrical insulation layer 30 of Hirth, see fig.1 and para.0010) comprises a porous ceramic layer (see claim 15 of Hirth: “if the electrical insulation layer is a porous ceramic”), said ceramic layer surrounding said cathode (309 of Ignatchenko, see fig.3. In Ignatchenko, the electrical insulation means 317 surrounds said cathode 309. Thus, the modified electrical insulation layer of Ignatchenko in view of Hirth surrounds the cathode 309)
and an electrically insulating filler ( pore filler, see para.0015 of Hirth) inside pores of said ceramic layer (See para.0015 of Hirth) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrical insulation means of Ignatchenko to comprise the “porous ceramic layer, said ceramic layer surrounding said cathode, and an electrically insulating filler inside pores of said ceramic layer” as taught by Hirth. Doing so provides very good electrical insulation properties (see para.0013 of Hirth).
Regarding claim 18, Ignatchenko in view of Hirth further discloses said porous ceramic layer ( silicon oxide (SiO.sub.2) or aluminium oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3, see para.0015) comprises internal pores (See para.0015 of Hirth), except slits.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify some pores of since Ignatchenko in view of Hirth to become long, narrow openings as “slits”, for the purpose of improving the electrical insulation properties, since applicant has not disclosed that having the “slits” shape provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs for providing the electrical insulation.
Regarding claim 19, Ignatchenko in view of Hirth discloses said internal pores and slits (para.0015 of Hirth and see rejections of claim 18) occur naturally in manufacturing of said porous ceramic layer (see para.0014-0015: “ non-porous ceramic”).
Claims 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of Hirth as applied to claim 18 and further in view of https://www.timtronics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TIM-LGF-2007_TDS.pdf, hereinafter Timtronics
Regarding claim 20, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 18, except said electrically insulating filler is a thermally conductive dispensable gap liquid or paste
Timtronics discloses TIM-LGF-2007 Thermally Conductive, Two-Part Silicone Liquid Gap Filler, comprising:
said electrically insulating filler is a thermally conductive dispensable gap liquid
(see page 1, Timtronics: “TIM-LGF-2007 is thermally conductive liquid gap filler materials…It can be applied like grease, easily dispensable from wide range of commercially available equipment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute said electrically insulating filler of Timtronics for the one of Ignatchenko in view of Hirth, so as “said electrically insulating filler is a thermally conductive dispensable gap liquid”, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of providing thermally conductive characteristics.
Regarding claim 21, Ignatchenko in view of Hirth and Timtronics further discloses
said electrically insulating material is a two-part silicone liquid gap filler commercially available as TIM-LGF2007 ((see page 1, Timtronics).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of YANG (CN202461816U)
Regarding claim 23, Ignatchenko discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except two or more magnetic coils placed between said plasma welding unit and said MIG welding unit.
YANG discloses a hybrid, MIG and plasma jet welding process obtained with an additional electric arc, comprising:
a magnetic coil (5, see fig.1) placed between said plasma welding unit (3, see fig.1) and said MIG welding unit (2, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the magnetic coil of YANG for the one of Ignatchenko so as the magnetic coil placed between said plasma welding unit and said MIG welding unit as taught by YANG since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of adjusting the distance between the plasma arc and an MIG arc.
Eventhough Ignatchenko in view of YANG does not expressly disclose two magnetic coils, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the magnetic coil of Ignatchenko in view of YANG, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatchenko in view of Tudorel as applied to claim 23, and further in view of ZHANG (CN109773359A, cited in 06/15/025 IDS)
Regarding claim 24, Ignatchenko in view of Tudorel discloses two magnetic coils (See rejection of claim 23 above), except said magnetic coils are two magnetic horns, said magnetic horns are configured to guide said magnetic field toward location of arc of said plasma welding unit.
ZHANG discloses a Plasma-MIG composite welding device used for narrow gap welding, comprising:
wherein said magnetic coils are two magnetic horns (20 and 21, see fig.1), said magnetic horns (20 and 21, see fig.1. See 112(b) rejections above) are configured to guide said magnetic field toward location of arc of said plasma welding unit (1, see fig.1 and page 12, lines 9-10: “Raw pulse current causes coil to generate magnetic field, and is conducted in magnetic field to welding torch lower end by magnetic conductive board”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic coils to be “two magnetic horns, said magnetic horns are configured to guide said magnetic field toward location of arc of said plasma welding unit” as taught by Zhang. Doing so stabilizes a magnetic field around a plasma arc.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 25-27 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to overcome the 112(b) rejections and include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US4142090A discloses Plasma MIG welding in which a plasma flow is generated between a non-consumable electrode and a workpiece, and a consumable electrode is fed through such plasma flow toward the workpiece to establish a MIG arc between the same
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights