Doc Code: AP.PRE.REQ
`
`PTO/AiA/ss (03-13)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2013. OMB 0651-0031
`US Patent and Trademark Office; US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paenivork Reduction Act of 1995, no oersons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it disla s a valid OMB control number.
`
`Docket Number (Optional)
`MAT-10584US
`PRE-APPEAL BRIEF REQUEST FOR REVIEW
`
`Application Number
`Filed
`
`13/820,557
`
`March 4, 2013
`
`First Named Inventor
`
`Junji FUJIWARA et al.
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`
`3742
`
`Frederick F. Calvetti
`
`
`
`Applicant requests review of the final rejection in the above—identified application. No amendments are being filed
`with this request.
`
`This request is being filed with a notice of appeal.
`
`The review is requested for the reason(s) stated on the attached sheet(s).
`Note: No more than five (5) pages may be provided.
`
`[:1
`
`‘
`applicant.
`
`Signature
`
`,7
`
`, Etkowicz
`Typed or printed name
`
`
`attorney or agent of record. 41 738
`Registration number
`
`610-407-0700
`
`Telephone number
`
`November 2, 2016
`D attorney or agent acting under 37 CFR 1.34.
`
`Registration number if acting under 37 CFR 1.34M Date
`
`NOTE: This form must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33. See 37 CFR 1.4 for signature requirements and certifications.
`Submit multiple forms if more than one signature is required, see below*.
`
`D *Total of ____..___.
`
`forms are submitted.
`
`This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C. 132. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO
`to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11, 1.14 and 41.6. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutes to
`complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer,
`US Patent and Trademark Office, US Department of Commerce, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313—1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED
`FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop AF, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`
`If you need assistance in completing the form, call 1-800—PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`

`

`Application NO.: 13/820,557
`
`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
`
`3742
`T.C./A.U.:
`Frederick F. Calvetti
`Examiner:
`Confirmation NO.: 6854
`Docket No.:
`MAT—10584US
`
`ATTACHMENT TO PRE-APPEAL BRIEF
`
`REQUEST FOR REVIEW
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313—1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Claims 1, 3—6, 11—14, 16—19, and 21—23 are presently pending. Claims 1, 3—6, 11—
`
`14, 16—19, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Appellants
`
`request reversal of the rejections of claims 1, 3—6, 11—14, 16—19, and 21—23 set forth in the
`
`Final Office Action of August 3, 2016.
`
`Summary of Arguments
`
`Claim 1 recites a consumable electrode arc welding control method. The method
`
`includes determining a basic welding wire feed speed, and periodically feeding welding wire
`
`such that a velocity amplitude of the welding wire above the basic wire feed is different from
`
`the velocity amplitude of the welding wire below the basic wire feed speed.
`
`The Examiner asserts that the feeding of welding wire recited in claim 1 would be
`
`obvious because “the term ‘basic’ means average.” This rejection is incorrect. The
`
`Examiner does not point out where the step of determining a basic welding wire feed speed
`
`is taught in the prior art, or even what the basic welding wire feed speed is. Without stating
`
`what the basic wire feed speed is, it is impossible to demonstrate in the applied references
`
`that the velocity amplitude of welding wire above the basic wire feed speed is different from
`
`the velocity amplitude of welding wire below the basic wire feed speed.
`
`In fact, under the
`
`Examiner’s interpretation of “basic” meaning “average," the prior art is different from the
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`

`

`Application NO.: 13/820,557
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`claimed invention, and includes equal velocity amplitudes above and below the “basic” wire
`
`feed speed.
`
`For at least the above reasons, Appellants seek reversal of the Final Office Action.
`
`Appellants’ detailed arguments follow.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1, 3—6, 11—14, 16-19, and 21—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable over Fujiwara et al. (WO 2011/013321) in view of Narayanan (US
`
`2006/0070983) and Huismann et al. (US 7,102,099). Appellants submit that this rejection
`
`should be reversed for at least the reasons set forth below.
`
`Claim 1 recites features which are not disclosed, taught, or suggested by the applied
`
`references, including:
`
`the basic wire feed
`...determining a basic wire feed speed,
`speed being an average feed speed for a set welding current...
`
`...feeding the welding wire at a predetermined frequency and a
`predetermined velocity amplitude with reference to the basic
`wire feed speed,
`
`wherein an upper velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed
`above the basic wire feed speed is different
`from a lower
`velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed below the basic wire
`feed speed.
`
`A basic wire feed speed is determined to be an average feed speed for a set welding
`
`current. The welding wire is fed at a predetermined frequency and velocity amplitude with
`
`reference to the basic wire feed speed. The velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed above
`
`the basic wire feed speed is different from the velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed
`
`below the basic wire feed speed. These features are found in the application, for example,
`
`at page 9, line 15, to page 10, line 2, and FIG. 2.
`
`Appellants respectfully submit that the applied references fail to disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest at least the above features of claim 1.
`
`Fujiwara is directed to an arc welding method. Fujiwara discloses an average wire
`
`feeding rate, and performing welding at a set frequency and amplitude relative to an
`
`average wire feeding rate. See FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1 of Fujiwara, the amplitude of the
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`
`p
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`wire feed speed above the average feeding rate is the same as the amplitude of the wire
`
`feed speed below the average feeding rate.
`
`The Examiner asserts that “the term ‘basic’ means average.” See the Office Action
`
`at page 8. Thus, it is presumed that the Examiner relies on the average feeding rate of
`
`Fujiwara as corresponding to the basic wire feed speed of claim 1. Claim 1 requires
`
`different velocity amplitudes above and below the basic wire feed speed.
`
`Fujiwara,
`
`however, requires the opposite. Specifically, Fujiwara requires the same velocity amplitude
`
`above and below the average feed speed,
`
`in order to allow the welding operation to be
`
`made suitable for the welding current, and in order to minimize a number of problems,
`
`including defective bead, increase in spatters, and lack of penetration. See Fujiwara at 111]
`
`11—12 of US 2012/0111842. Thus, not only does Fujiwara fail
`
`to disclose or teach the
`
`features of claim 1,
`
`it in fact teaches away from using different velocity amplitudes above
`
`and below the average feed speed.
`
`If the Examiner is not relying on the average feeding rate as corresponding to the
`
`basic wire feed speed, then Appellants submit that Fujiwara does not disclose the step of
`
`determining a basic wire feed speed recited in claim 1. Fujiwara fails to disclose, teach, or
`
`suggest a step of determining a “basic wire feed speed" which is an average feed speed for
`
`a set welding current. Likewise, the Office Action does not identify any portion of Fujiwara
`
`which determines a “basic wire feed speed" which is not just the average feeding rate
`
`shown in FIG. 1 of Fujiwara.
`
`To summarize,
`
`it is unclear whether the Examiner asserts that the basic wire feed
`
`speed is (1) the average feeding rate, or (2) some other feeding rate.
`
`If (1), then Fujiwara
`
`does not show different velocity amplitudes above and below the basic wire feed speed.
`
`If(2),
`
`then the Examiner has not pointed to where the step of determining this other
`
`feeding rate is taught in Fujiwara.
`
`Notwithstanding the deficiencies of Fujiwara, the Examiner also asserts that it would
`
`be obvious to modify the waveform of Fujiwara based on the waveforms of Huismann or
`
`Narayanan. Appellants respectfully disagree for two reasons.
`
`First, one of ordinary skill would not have modified the waveform of Fujiwara based
`
`on Huismann and Narayanan. “If proposed modification would render the prior art invention
`
`being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose,
`
`then there is no suggestion or
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`' Application No.: 13/820,557
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`motivation to make the proposed modification.” See M.P.E.P. § 2143.01(V). As set forth
`
`above,
`
`the disclosure of Fujiwara is directed to the use of a welding waveform that
`
`maintains a predetermined frequency and amplitude relative to an average speed in order '
`
`to achieve the recited advantages in the welding process. See US 2012/0111842 at 1111 11
`
`and 12. Accordi’ng‘to the express teachings of Fujiwara, modifying the waveform of
`
`Fujiwara to remove the predetermined frequency or amplitude would prevent the realization
`
`of the disclosed advantages. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified
`
`the waveform of Fujiwara to remove the predetermined frequency or amplitude based on
`
`the teachings of Huismann or Narayanan, or indeed any other prior art reference.
`
`Second, even if one of ordinary skill would have modified Fujiwara, Huismann and
`
`Narayanan do not provide any teaching regarding determining a basic wire feed speed in
`
`the manner recited in claim 1.
`
`Instead, the Examiner appears to assert that a zero feed
`
`speed in Huismann and Narayanan corresponds to the basic wire feed speed, without
`
`showing that the zero feed speed is determined to be an average feed speed for a set
`
`welding current, as required by claim 1. Without such a teaching, one of ordinary skill
`
`in
`
`the art would not have modified Fujiwara based on Huismann and Narayanan to (1) include
`the determination of a wire feed speed, or (2) cause the amplitude of the wire feed speed
`
`above the basic wire feed speed to be different from the amplitude of the wire feed speed
`
`below the basic wire feed speed.
`
`For all of the above reasons, Appellants respectfully submit that Fujiwara in view of
`
`Narayanan and Huismann fails to render obvious the features of “determining a basic wire
`
`feed speed, the basic wire feed speed being an average feed speed for a set welding
`
`current...feeding the welding wire at a predetermined frequency and a predetermined
`
`velocity amplitude with reference to the basic wire feed speed, wherein an upper velocity
`
`amplitude of the wire feed speed above the basic wire feed speed is different from a lower
`
`velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed below the basic wire feed speed,” as recited in
`
`claim 1. Therefore, Appellants respectfully request that this rejection of claim 1 should be
`
`reversed.
`
`Claim 14, while not identical to claim 1, includes features similar to the features of
`
`claim 1 discussed above. Thus, Appellants submit that claim 14 is allowable over the
`
`applied references for at
`
`least
`
`the reasons set forth above with respect
`
`to claim 1.
`
`Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 14 is respectfully requested.
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Application NO.‘: 13/820,557 "
`
`'
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`Claims 3—6, 11—13, 16—19, and 21—23 include all of the features of one of claims 1
`
`and 14, from which they respectively depend. Thus, Appellants submit that claims 3—6, 11—
`
`13, 16-19, and 21—23 are allowable over the applied references for at least the reasons set
`
`forth above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of
`claims 3-6, 11-13, 16—19, and 21-23 is respectfully requested.
`
`In conclusion, for at least the reasons set forth above, Appellants request review and
`
`reversal of the rejections set forth in the Office Action dated August 3, 2016.
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`