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 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 1-10 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. The phrase “” is indefinite as it is unclear if “alternately” means in the alternative, the bending deformation is applied on alternating sides or something else.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-X is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 9,873,162 to Negishi et al (Negishi).
Concerning claim 1, Negishi discloses a welding-wire-straightening apparatus for straightening bend of a welding wire, comprising
two roller groups (13a, 13b) each including a plurality of straightening rollers (12), the welding wire being passed through the two roller groups,
wherein the plurality of straightening rollers (12) included in each of the roller groups are arranged with a predetermined arrangement interval L in a passing direction of the welding wire so as to be opposed across a straightening path along which the welding wire is passed,
the two roller groups (13a, 13b) are arranged so that opposing directions across the straightening path are different (see figures 2A and 2B),
in each of the roller groups, the plurality of straightening rollers are such that a first roller, a second roller, . . . , nth roller are sequentially disposed in the passing direction of the welding wire, bending deformation in opposite directions is alternately applied to the welding wire by these n rollers (n is an integer greater than or equal to 4) to straighten curl (see figures 2A and 2B),
(the remainder of the claim is intended use as the structure of the straightening apparatus is the same as such the prior art merely has to be capable of performing these functions which Negishi is)
let t (mm) be a diameter of the welding wire, let δ.sub.in (mm) be an entrance roller engaging amount caused by the first roller, the second roller and the third roller,
let 2L.sub.in (mm) be an interaxial distance between the first roller and the third roller,
let g.sub.in (mm) be an entrance chord length which is a chord length of an overlapping portion of the second roller with the welding wire under an assumption that the welding wire is linearly arranged to come into contact with the first roller and the third roller,
let δ.sub.out (mm) be an exit roller engaging amount caused by the (n−2)th roller, the (n−1)th roller and the nth roller,
let 2L.sub.out (mm) be an interaxial distance between the nth roller and the (n−2)th roller,
let g.sub.out (mm) be an exit chord length which is a chord length of an overlapping portion of the (n−1)th roller with the welding wire under an assumption that the welding wire is linearly arranged to come into contact with the (n−2)th roller and the nth roller, then
the n straightening rollers are positioned so that an entrance wire deformation parameter C.sub.in calculated by a mathematical expression C.sub.in=L.sub.in/[{(δ.sub.in+t)/g.sub.in}.sup.2] is 1150 to 1500, and an exit wire deformation parameter C.sub.out calculated by a mathematical expression C.sub.out=L.sub.out/[{(Sout+t)/g.sub.out}.sup.2] is 4300 to 49000, and
the n straightening rollers are positioned so that a welding-wire-feed resistance parameter F calculated by a mathematical expression F=(L.sub.in/C.sub.in+L.sub.out/C.sub.out)×n is less than 0.037.
In the event applicant argues that Negishi does not disclose these subsequent limitations it is noted that Negishi is structurally the same as applicant’s invention (compare the figures of Negishi such as figures 2A, 2B, 4 and 5 which is virtually the same as applicant’s figures 2A, 2B, 4 and 5) as such it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi with these parameters as such determination would result during routine engineering practices and experimentation. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 2, Negishi discloses wherein a radius r of the straightening rollers is less than 7 mm (see column 9, lines 25-38 where the diameter is less than 20mm which means the radius is less than 10mm which means that it includes being less than 7mm).
Concerning claim 3, Negishi discloses wherein a radius r of the straightening rollers is greater than or equal to 5 mm (see column 9, lines 25-38 where the diameter is less than 20mm which means the radius is less than 10mm which means that it includes being greater than or equal to 5 mm).
Concerning claim 8, Negishi discloses the welding wire is a solid wire.
Concerning claim 9, Negishi discloses wherein the n=5.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negishi.
Concerning claim 4, Negishi does not disclose the exact arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi wherein an arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers is less than or equal to 8.75 mm. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 5, Negishi does not disclose the exact arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi wherein an arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers is greater than 5 mm. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 6, Negishi does not disclose the exact arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi wherein an interaxial distance Lan between the first roller and the nth roller is less than or equal to 35 mm. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 7, Negishi does not disclose the exact arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi wherein an interaxial distance Lan between the first roller and the nth roller is greater than 20 mm. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Concerning claim 10, Negishi does not disclose the exact arrangement interval L between the plurality of straightening rollers.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to construct the apparatus of Negishi wherein a total length N of the roller groups is greater than 60 mm, and less than or equal to 110 mm. Accordingly, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The other prior art cited on the PTO-892 are other examples of similar straightening apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Katcoff whose telephone number is (571)270-1415. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8-4, Fri: Flex.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/Matthew Katcoff/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
08/20/2026
Prosecution Insights