Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated May 5, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2016
`
`RemarkslArguments:
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`Claims 1~6 and 10—23 are presently pending, with all pending claims
`
`rejected.
`
`Applicants herein amend claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 16, and 17, and cancel claims 2, 10, 15, and 20
`
`without prejudice or disclaimer.
`
`No new matter has been added.
`
`Reconsideration is
`
`respectfully requested in view of the above amendments and the following remarks.
`
`Claim Re'ections Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112
`
`Page 2 of the Office Action sets forth “Claims 1—23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
`
`or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite...” In particular, the Office
`
`Action asserts that “[t]he term ‘basic’ is not understood.” Applicants herein amend claims 1
`
`and 14 to clarify that the “basic wire feed speed" is an average feed speed for a set welding
`
`current. Applicants respectfully submit that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would understand
`
`the scope and determination of the “basic wire feed speed” in the claims when read in light of
`
`the specification. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that this rejection be withdrawn.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Page 3 of the Office Action sets forth “Claims 1—6, 10-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujiwara et al
`
`(WO 2011/013321...)
`
`in view of
`
`Narayanan et al
`
`(US 2006/0070983) and Huismann et al
`
`(US 7,102,099).” Applicants
`
`respectfully submit that these claims are patentable over the applied references for the reasons
`
`set forth below.
`
`Applicants’ invention, as recited by claim 1,
`
`includes features which are not disclosed,
`
`taught, or suggested by the applied references, namely:
`
`...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.
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated May 5, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2016
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`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 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. No new matter is added.
`L
`
`The Office Action asserts that “[t]he term ‘basic’ is...subject to broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation [and] includes average and zero.” See page 8. Applicants herein amend claim 1
`
`to overcome this interpretation by providing a step of determining the basic wire feed speed to
`
`be an average feed speed for a set welding current. Applicants 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 performing welding at
`
`a predetermined frequency and velocity amplitude relative to an average speed.
`
`Fujiwara
`
`explains that using a predetermined frequency and velocity amplitude allows the welding
`
`operation to be made suitable for the welding current, and minimizes a number of problems,
`
`including defective bead, increase in spatters, and lack of penetration. See US 2012/0111842
`at 1111 61 and 62.
`"
`
`Fujiwara fails to disclose, teach, or suggest determining a basic wire feed speed to be an
`
`average feed speed for a set welding current. Because Fujiwara does not determine a basic
`
`wire feed speed, the amplitude of the wire feed speed above or below the basic wire feed speed
`
`cannot be determined. Thus, Fujiwara necessarily cannot disclose that the amplitude of the
`
`wire feed speed above a basic wire feed speed is different from the amplitude of the wire feed
`
`speed below the basic wire feed speed. Therefore, Fujiwara is different from claim 1, which
`
`requires determining a basic wire feed speed to be an average feed speed for a set welding
`current, and feeding the welding wire such that 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.
`
`The Office Action asserts that it would be obvious to modify the waveform of Fujiwara
`
`based on the waveforms of Huismann or Narayanan. ‘ Applicants respectfully disagree for two
`reasons.
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated May 5, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2016
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`First, Huismann and Narayanan, do not provide any teaching regarding the amplitude of
`
`wire feed speed above or below a basic wire feed speed determined in the manner recited in
`
`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.
`
`Second, 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
`
`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 111] 61 and 62. According
`
`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.
`
`For the above reasons, Applicants 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.
`
`Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, claim 1
`
`is allowable over the applied
`
`references. Therefore, withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of claim 1 is respectfully
`
`req uested.
`
`Claim 14, while not
`
`identical
`
`to claim 1,
`
`includes features similar to the features of
`
`claim 1 discussed above. Thus, Applicants submit that claim 14 is allowable over the applied
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated May 5, 2016
`Reply to Office Action of February 11, 2016
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`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.
`
`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, Applicants 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.
`
`Conclusion:
`
`In view of
`
`the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicants submit
`
`that
`
`this
`
`application is in condition for allowance, which action is respectfully requested.
`
` JLE/dmw
`
`Dated: May 5, 2016
`
`P.O. Box 980
`
`Valley Forge, PA 19482
`(610) 407—0700
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge 0r credit Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpayment or credit for overpayment in connection herewith.
`3026423
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`