Application No.: 13/820,557
`Reply Brief Dated: May 17, 2017
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer Dated: March 17, 2017
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appln. No:
`Appellants:
`Filed:
`Title:
`
`13/820,557
`Junji FUJIWARA et al.
`March 4, 2013
`ARC WELDING CONTROL METHOD
`AND ARC WELDING DEVICE
`
`TC/A.U.:
`Examiner:
`Confirmation No.:
`
`3742
`Frederick F. Calvetti
`6854
`
`Notice of Appeal Filed: November 2, 2016
`Docket No.:
`MAT-10584US
`
`REPLY BRIEF UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.41
`
`Mail Stop Appeal Brief~Patents
`Commissioner for Patents
`P. O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`SIR:
`
`This Reply Brief is submitted in response to the Examiner’s Answer dated
`
`March 17, 2017. "
`
`As explained in the Appeal Brief, the applied references do not disclose, teach,
`
`or suggest a basic wire feed speed determined based on a set welding current. Moreover,
`
`under the Examiner’s interpretation of “basic” meaning “average,” the prior art is different
`
`from the claimed invention, because it discloses equal velocity amplitudes above and below
`
`the average wire feed speed.
`
`On page 7 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner argues that “[t]he term
`
`‘basic’ means average.” This interpretation, however, supports Appellants’ position.
`
`Fujiwara, and the remaining applied references, all disclose equal velocity amplitudes above
`
`and below the average wire feed speed. Thus, if the claimed “basic wire feed speed” is
`
`interpreted as being an average wire feed speed, then the applied references are different
`
`from the claimed invention, because none of the applied references disclose or teach that a
`
`velocity amplitude above the average wire feed speed is different from a velocity amplitude
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No.2 13/820,557
`Reply Brief Dated: May 17, 2017
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer Dated: March 17, 2017
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`below the basic wire feed speed, as required by claim 1. Likewise, none of the applied
`
`references disclose or teach that a waveform above the average wire feed speed is different
`
`from a waveform below the basic wire feed speed, as required by claim 14. For at least
`
`these reasons, the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed.
`
`On page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner argues “it is generally
`
`known that the wire feeding rate changes in proportion to change in welding current.”
`
`Appellants disagree. The Examiner does not identify any portion of the applied references
`
`that discloses or teaches changing an amplitude or waveform above a basic wire feed speed
`
`relative to an amplitude or waveform below the basic wire feed speed. To the contrary, the
`
`portion of Fujiwara cited by the Examiner merely recites that the frequency and velocity
`
`amplitude are “predetermined.” See Fujiwara at 111} 11, 40, and 61. Fujiwara provides no
`
`discussion of changing these predetermined values, let alone changing an upper portion
`
`relative to a lower portion. For at least this reason, the Examiner’s rejection should be
`
`reversed.
`
`On pages 10-11 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner argues that the
`
`applied references teach the claimed amplitude because they teach “trapezoid”—like
`
`waveforms like the ones disclosed in the present application. Appellants disagree. This
`
`argument, however, misses the point of the invention as claimed. The claimed invention
`
`does not relate to differently—shaped waveforms; it relates to differing portions of a single
`
`waveform. Specifically, claim 1 recites a velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed
`
`waveform above the basic wire feed speed is different from a velocity amplitude of the wire
`
`feed speed waveform below the basic wire feed speed. Claim 14 likewise recites that an
`
`upper portion of the wire feed speed waveform is different from a lower portion of the wire
`
`feed speed waveform. These different portions of a single waveform are not disclosed,
`
`taught, or suggested by the “trapezoid”-like waveforms referred to in the Examiner’s
`
`Answer. For at least this reason, the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed.
`
`On page 11 of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner argues that the location
`
`of the basic wire feed speed is a “relative location” along the Y—axis. Appellants disagree.
`
`The claims require that the value of the basic wire feed speed be an average feed speed
`
`based on a set welding current. Thus, the basic wire feed speed cannot be selected
`
`anywhere along the Y-axis, but by the language of the claims, must be derived from the set
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Reply Brief Dated: May 17, 2017
`Reply to Examiner’s Answer Dated: March 17, 2017
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`welding current. The Examiner has not pointed to any portion of the applied references
`
`which discloses or teaches determining the basic wire feed speed. For at least this reason,
`
`the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed.
`
`In View of all of the arguments set forth above, reversal of the rejection of the
`
`claims of the above-identified application is respectfully requested
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`t;
`iii
`Jacque Ag.Etkowmzfig No. 41,738
`Andre J Koopmanf Reg. No. 65,537
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Dated: May 17, 2017
`
`2200 Renaissance Blvd.
`Suite 350
`
`King of Prussia, PA 19406
`(610) 407—0700
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge
`or credit Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpayment or
`credit for overpayment in connection
`herewith.
`
`3589458
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`