/
`
`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated December 7, 2015
`Reply to Office Action of September 22, 2015
`
`RemarkszArguments:
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`Claims
`
`1—6 and 10—23 are presently pending, with all pending claims
`
`rejected.
`
`Applicants herein amend claims
`
`1, 6, and 10—14.
`
`No new matter has been added.
`
`Reconsideration is respectfully requested in view of the above amendments and the following
`
`remarks.
`
`Applicants thank the Examiner and his Supervisor for the courtesy of the telephone
`
`interview conducted on November 10, 2015. During the interview, claim 1 was discussed. No
`
`agreement was reached.
`
`Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Page 2 of the Office Action sets forth “Claims 1~13 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).” This rejection is also applied to
`
`claims 14~23 on pages 5—6 of the Office Action. 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:
`
`...feeding the welding wire...at a predetermined frequency and a
`predetermined velocity amplitude with reference to a basic wire
`feed speed based on a set current...and
`
`controlling a speed of periodic feeding of the welding wire in such a
`manner that an upper velocity amplitude above the basic wire feed
`speed is different from a lower velocity amplitude below the basic
`wire feed speed.
`
`The welding wire is fed at a predetermined velocity amplitude with reference to a basic
`
`wire feed speed. The basic wire feed speed is based on a set current. The periodic feeding of
`
`the welding wire is controlled such that the velocity amplitude above the basic wire feed speed
`
`is different from the velocity amplitude below the basic wire feed speed. These features are
`
`found in the application, for example, at FIG. 2. No new matter is added.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the applied references fail
`
`to disclose,
`
`teach, or
`
`suggest at least the above features of claim 1.
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated December 7, 2015
`Reply to Office Action of September 22, 2015
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`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 M] 61 and 62.
`
`Fujiwara fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a wire feed speed such that the velocity
`
`amplitude above the average wire feed speed is different from a velocity amplitude below the
`
`average wire feed speed. During the interview, the Examiner asserted that, under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, the “basic” wire feed speed of the claims may be any horizontal line,
`
`such as a zero wire feed speed in FIG. 1 of Fujiwara. Applicants respectfully disagree with this
`
`interpretation.
`
`As set forth in claim 1, the basic wire feed speed is “based on a set current." Because
`
`the basic wire feed speed is based on a set current, the basic wire feed speed can never be
`
`zero. Moreover, claim 1 requires that the welding wire be fed at a predetermined velocity
`
`amplitude relative to the basic wire feed speed. Fujiwara fails to disclose, teach, or suggest
`
`feeding welding wire at a predetermined velocity amplitude relative to a zero feed speed. Thus,
`
`Fujiwara is different from claim 1, which requires controlling a periodic feeding of welding wire
`such that the velocity amplitude above the basic wire feed speed is different from the velocity-
`
`amplitude below the basic wire feed speed, where the basic wire feed speed is based on a set
`current.
`
`The Office Action also asserts that it would be obvious to modify the waveform of
`
`Fujiwara based on the waveforms of Huismann or Narayanan. Applicants respectfully disagree.
`
`“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
`
`the disclosure of
`proposed modification." See M.P.E.P. § 2143.01(V). As set forth above,
`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
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated December 7, 2015
`Reply to Office Action of September 22, 2015
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`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 “...feeding the welding wire...at a
`
`predetermined frequency and a predetermined velocity amplitude with reference to a basic wire
`
`feed speed based on a set current...and controlling a speed of periodic feeding of the welding
`
`wire in such a manner that an upper velocity amplitude above the basic wire feed speed is
`
`different from a lower velocity amplitude 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
`
`requested.
`
`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
`
`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 2-6, 10—13, and 15—23 include all of the features of one of claims 1 and 14, from
`
`which they respectively depend. Thus, Applicants submit that claims 2-6 and 10—13 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 2—6 and 10-13 is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`

`

`Application No.: 13/820,557
`Amendment Dated December 7, 2015
`Reply to Office Action of September 22, 2015
`
`Conclusion:
`
`MAT—10584US
`
`In view ofthe foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicants submit
`
`that
`
`this
`
`application is in condition for allowance, which action is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully s
`
`
`
`
`L. Etkowicz, Reg. No. 41,738
`tto ey for Applicants
`
`
`
`JLE/dmw
`
`Dated: December 7, 2015
`
`P.O. Box 980
`Valley Forge, PA 19482
`(610) 407—0700
`
`§
`i
`
`"T'iie"'biré¢ior"i§'h’eié‘bféifiho'r'iéé'a”ic'd‘ié‘rge or credit Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpayment or credit for overpayment in connection herewith.
`2851793
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`