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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the steps in a method claim to be labeled as claim subsections in the aforementioned claims, by way of example claim 10 comprises steps 10.1, 10.2…ect. The applicant can amend to include labeling the steps, for example a) b)…ect or the applicant may take use the method of claim numbering from claim 1 of the instant application. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because according to MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(c) “The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
measuring means is referred to as item 22 and item 26 see par. 251 for example
control means 24 and comparing means (not shown) are used interchangeably throughout the specification leading the examiner to be unclear if they are the same thing or not, see par. 238 for example.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Fig. 1 Items 10, 12, 14, 18, and 20, fig. 3 item 14, figs. 5 and 6a item 20, do not point to anything. It is not determinable what the items are intending to represent.
(q) Lead lines. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (l) of this section.
(r) Arrows. Arrows may be used at the ends of lines, provided that their meaning is clear, as follows:
(1) On a lead line, a freestanding arrow to indicate the entire section towards which it points;
(2) On a lead line, an arrow touching a line to indicate the surface shown by the line looking along the direction of the arrow; or
(3) To show the direction of movement.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a comparing means” in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 is directed towards a computer program including machine-readable instructions.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claim 15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Claim 15 recites at least one step or instruction for a welding means, measuring means and control means, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The act of disclosing a computer program is a mental processes or concept performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, each of Claim 15 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 15 recites A computer program product including machine-readable control instructions which, when loaded into a controller of a welding device for welding grouped conductor ends of a component for an electrical machine, the welding device comprising:
a welding means for welding energy input to grouped conductor ends;
a measuring means for detecting a relative position of a first conductor end and a second conductor end of grouped conductor ends by position measurement using optical measurement methods, wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding, wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position, and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value, cause the welding device to perform the welding process according claim
1.
The judgment or evaluation of a control means to determine a value and cause a welding device to perform a welding process is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value, cause the welding device to perform the welding process according claim 1 involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 15), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer program product, welding means, measuring means, and control means as recited in independent Claim 15 are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a computer program product, welding means, measuring means, and control means as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a computer program product, welding means, measuring means, and control means.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Computer program product falls under 112(a) with its structure not disclose, par. 231, 237, and 238 disclose control means 24 is a control unit and computing unit which falls under 112(f) and 112(a), welding means is loosely disclosed as a beam in par. 233 and also falls under 112(f) and 112(a), measuring means is disclosed as an optical coherence tomography device under par. 239 and also falls under 112(f) and thus, computer program product, welding means, measuring means, and control means are indefinite per MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computer program product and control means is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer program product and control means. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the computer program product, welding means, measuring means, and control means of Claim 15 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 15 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claim 15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claim15 is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“welding means” in claims 8 and 15 is being interpreted as item 16 which are per par. 232 is a beam welder.
“measuring means” in claims 8-13, and 15 is being interpreted as items 22 and 26 which are per par. 251 emits a measuring beam.
“control means” in claims 8 and 15 is being interpreted as item 24 which are per par. 231 is a computing unit and memory.
“a comparing means” in claim 9 is unclear, see the 112(b) section
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The computer program product of claim 15 falls under 112(a) because its structure not disclosed in the specification in such a way to allow one or ordinary skill the art to determine what the computer program is mean to be or if it’s an abstract idea, see par. 231, 237, and 238 of the instant application. The specification of the instant application does disclose control means 24 is a control unit and computing unit which falls under 112(f) but does not adequately disclose a computer program product.
Further, The welding means is loosely disclosed as a beam in par. 233 and also falls under 112(f) and 112(a), measuring means is disclosed as an optical coherence tomography device under par. 239 and also falls under 112(f).
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, and 15, the recitation of “using optical measurement methods” is unclear what structure or method the applicant is referring to that encompasses optical measurement methods. The wording of “using optical measurement methods” give the implication is that there is a specific set of method involved that are not disclosed and are beyond just a user’s visual inspection. Further, it is unclear if this just includes or does not include a user “eyeballing” the measurement. As such the scope of the claims are unclear.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-14, these claims are written in a Markush format with alternative limitations. MPEP 2117 II and 2173.05(h) require that the alternative limitations are chosen from a closed group of limitations else there are unclear under 112(b), therefore, the transitional phrases of claims 2-7 and 9-14 are required to be amended to “consisting of”. The current transitional phrases of claims 2-7 and 9-14 are open ended which makes them unclear under 112(b). The examiner is interpreting the transitional phrases to mean “consisting of”.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation of “has at least one of predetermined jump paths or jump times” is unclear what structure is required to meet the limitation of “predetermined jump paths or jump times”.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “a determined value reaches a limit value” is unclear what structure is required to meet the limitation of “a determined value”.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation of “the welding method correlates” is unclear what is required to meet the limitation of the welding method correlating. Essentially, how does one of ordinary skill in the art that a proper correlation is achieved?
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “a predetermined limit value” is unclear what structure is required to meet the limitation of “a determined value”.
Claim limitation ““a comparing means” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A comparing means is not disclosed in the spec and Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 9-14 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of claims 9-14 are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity of a measuring means and a common use for the following reasons: The measuring means is disclosed as a device in claim 8 of which claims 9-14 depend, however, claim 9-14 merely recite different types measuring means and only defines them by their function and not their structure and therefore, the alternatives do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Regarding claim 10, and similar (Claim 11, 12, 13, etc.), the scope of the claim is unclear because the measuring means is already part of the device of claim 8. There is nothing in the specification that discloses that there is any structural difference in the different measuring means listed in claim 10. Instead claim 10 just appears to be a laundry list of different measurements that can be made using the previously claimed measuring system. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
136 200
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200067388 A1 Zeadan in view of US 20190321905 A1 Wang.
Regarding claim 1,
Zeadan teaches, except where struck through,
A welding method (laser welding, title) for welding grouped conductor ends of a component for an electric machine (welding ends of conductors in a stator package, abstract) by means of a welding device (laser beam 32), comprising:
detecting a relative position of a first conductor end and a second conductor end of grouped conductor ends by position measurement (position of the first and second conductors are detected, par. 25) using optical measurement methods (camera is used to measure the dimensions of the conductor, par. 25; par. 38), and subsequently, the steps of:
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
a) detecting a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding;
b) detecting a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding;
c) determining a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter, and the relative position; and
d) controlling a welding energy input depending on the determined value of the molten pool.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches a welding method, which can be applied to laser welding (par. 25) and therefore further teaches
a) detecting a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, size is capable of being a first parameter);
b) detecting a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter);
c) determining a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter, and the relative position (par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding, and par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter); and
d) controlling a welding energy input depending on the determined value of the molten pool (par. 21-22 and par. 49-50 teach adjusting arc intensity).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding claim 2,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach: wherein step a) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
al) detecting the first size parameter by means of optical measurement methods;
a2) detecting the first size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
a3) performing optical coherence tomography;
a4) arranging a double cross relative to the grouped conductor ends, relative to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, and arranging lines of the double cross relative to each other, at a predetermined distance from each other;
a5) forming a double cross, which is assigned to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, larger than a welding contour;
a6) forming a double cross such that a measuring beam, which can be guided along the lines of the double cross, has at least one of predetermined jump paths or jump times;
a7) alternately guiding a measuring beam to different conductor ends;
a8) guiding a measuring beam to the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
a9) directing a measuring beam to a first end region of a first conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, and to a second end region of a second conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, in at least two dimensions;
a10) scanning a measuring beam along a double cross which is assigned to the grouped conductor ends, the double cross respectively comprising two lines which are arranged in x- and y-directions and are arranged at a predetermined distance from one another;
all) detecting a lateral extension of the molten pool as a first size parameter, in a plane of the grouped conductor ends;
a12) detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter, at least one of a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between the grouped conductor ends, prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the grouped conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, or
a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter is detected for determining the value.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches wherein step a) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
al) detecting the first size parameter by means of optical measurement methods (par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, size is capable of being a first parameter and par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry, par. 29 to 31 teaches using optical fibers 132 to receive electromagnetic radiation emitted from the weld areas 114, and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding which is done by feeding optical signal information 142 to computer 150);
a2) detecting the first size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
a3) performing optical coherence tomography;
a4) arranging a double cross relative to the grouped conductor ends, relative to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, and arranging lines of the double cross relative to each other, at a predetermined distance from each other;
a5) forming a double cross, which is assigned to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, larger than a welding contour;
a6) forming a double cross such that a measuring beam, which can be guided along the lines of the double cross, has at least one of predetermined jump paths or jump times;
a7) alternately guiding a measuring beam to different conductor ends;
a8) guiding a measuring beam to the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
a9) directing a measuring beam to a first end region of a first conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, and to a second end region of a second conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, in at least two dimensions;
a10) scanning a measuring beam along a double cross which is assigned to the grouped conductor ends, the double cross respectively comprising two lines which are arranged in x- and y-directions and are arranged at a predetermined distance from one another;
all) detecting a lateral extension of the molten pool as a first size parameter, in a plane of the grouped conductor ends;
a12) detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter, at least one of a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between the grouped conductor ends, prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the grouped conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, or a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter is detected for determining the value.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to provide closed loop and feedback on the quality of a weld bead to allow a machine to self-correct for irregularities which has the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 47).
Regarding claim 3,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein step b) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
b 1) detecting the second size parameter by means of optical measurement methods;
b2) detecting the second size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
b3) performing optical coherence tomography;
b4) detecting the second size parameter at a position of a welding beam;
b5) guiding or directing a measuring beam to a current position of a welding beam;
b6) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel, at a position of the welding beam;
b7) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of the welding beam in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
b8) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel in a beam direction of the welding beam;
b9) detecting a gap depth during gap crossing of at least one of a measuring beam or welding beam;
b10) detecting a molten pool depth;
b11) detecting a molten pool depth on a surface of at least one conductor end or of the grouped conductor ends, in particular at an end region of the grouped conductor ends;
b12) detecting a weld depth at a position of a welding beam;
b13) correlating a detected depth at a position of a welding beam with height information in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
b14) detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter, at least one of a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between the conductor ends prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter is detected for determining the value.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches wherein step b) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
b 1) detecting the second size parameter by means of optical measurement methods (par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter and par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry, par. 29 to 31 teaches using optical fibers 132 to receive electromagnetic radiation emitted from the weld areas 114, and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding which is done by feeding optical signal information 142 to computer 150);
b2) detecting the second size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
b3) performing optical coherence tomography;
b4) detecting the second size parameter at a position of a welding beam;
b5) guiding or directing a measuring beam to a current position of a welding beam;
b6) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel, at a position of the welding beam;
b7) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of the welding beam in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
b8) detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel in a beam direction of the welding beam;
b9) detecting a gap depth during gap crossing of at least one of a measuring beam or welding beam;
b10) detecting a molten pool depth;
b11) detecting a molten pool depth on a surface of at least one conductor end or of the grouped conductor ends, in particular at an end region of the grouped conductor ends;
b12) detecting a weld depth at a position of a welding beam;
b13) correlating a detected depth at a position of a welding beam with height information in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
b14) detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter, at least one of a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between the conductor ends prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter is detected for determining the value.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to provide closed loop and feedback on the quality of a weld bead to allow a machine to self-correct for irregularities which has the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 47).
Regarding claim 4,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein step c) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
ci) determining a molten pool dimension of the molten pool as a value of the molten pool;
c2) determining an increase in a melt volume as a value of the molten pool; or
c3) determining a connection cross-section of the grouped conductor ends as a value of the molten pool.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches
wherein step c) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
ci) determining a molten pool dimension of the molten pool as a value of the molten pool (par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding and par. 101 to 106 teach different methods of attaining melt pool or weld pool geometry);
c2) determining an increase in a melt volume as a value of the molten pool; or
c3) determining a connection cross-section of the grouped conductor ends as a value of the molten pool.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to provide closed loop and feedback on the quality of a weld bead to allow a machine to self-correct for irregularities which has the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 47).
Regarding claim 5,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Zeadan further teaches:
wherein step d) comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
dl) directing a welding beam to the grouped conductor ends;
d2) guiding a welding beam, repeatedly, along a symmetrical contour;
d3) guiding a welding beam, repeatedly, along an elliptical contour;
d4) forming a fusion ring by means of a welding beam;
d5) forming a fusion blanket or a molten pool by means of a welding beam;
d6) forming a weld bead (bridge 34 where the method of forming the weld bead is taught in par. 40-46);
d7) starting the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
d8) stopping the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
d9) stopping the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends when a determined value reaches a limit value;
d10) adjusting, by increasing or decreasing, the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
dl1) applying a predetermined higher welding energy input to the conductor end extending further or higher in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends, when there is a height offset between conductor ends in the grouped conductor ends;
d12) distributing a welding energy input according to a tangential offset between the conductor ends;
d13) directing two welding beams, either sequentially directing of one welding beam or simultaneous directing of two welding beams, to the grouped conductor ends, wherein one welding beam is assigned to one conductor end of the grouped conductor ends and another welding beam is assigned to another conductor end of the grouped conductor ends;
d14) detecting a point in time at which two individual molten pools combine into one molten pool, a first molten pool being assigned to a first conductor end and a second molten pool being assigned to the second conductor end;
d15) welding the conductor ends, at an end region or at an end face, in a parallel joint.
Regarding claim 6,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Zeadan further teaches:
wherein the detection of the relative position comprises at least one or more of the following steps:
6.1 position measuring by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
6.2 performing an optical coherence tomography;
6.3 alternately directing a measuring beam to different conductor end groups having at least one grouped conductor end;
6.4 measuring intervals or distances in at least two dimensions at a conductor end group (camera detects the dimensions and position of the conductors and by detecting dimensions it is inherent to be completed in at least two dimensions, the position detection also inherently requires at least to dimensions as is known in the art for spatial identification par. 25);
6.5 measuring an interval or distance in a direction of an extension of conductor sections comprising conductor ends;
6.6 determining a distance between the conductor ends;
6.7 measuring a height offset between the conductor ends;
6.8 determining a cross-sectional area of an end regions of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end of the conductor ends;
6.9 determining a tangential offset between the conductor ends;
6.10 determining a radial offset between the conductor ends;
6.11 measuring at least one of a thickness, a width or a height of an end region at the conductor end group;
6.12 detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between the conductor ends, prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter is detected for determining the value.
Regarding claim 7,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
7.1 the welding method correlates at least one of the first size parameter, the second size parameter, an extension of the molten pool, a depth of a vapor channel or a vapor capillary at the position of a welding beam, at least one gap dimension or the value to at least one of corresponding sizes or corresponding data sets from preliminary experiments, or
7.2 a training data set for neural networks is formed, the training data set comprising the first size parameter, the second size parameter, an extension of the molten pool, a depth of a steam channel or a steam capillary at the position of the welding beam, at least one gap dimension, at least one of the value or data sets from previous experiments.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches
7.1 the welding method correlates at least one of the first size parameter, the second size parameter, an extension of the molten pool, a depth of a vapor channel or a vapor capillary at the position of a welding beam, at least one gap dimension or the value to at least one of corresponding sizes or corresponding data sets from preliminary experiments, or
7.2 a training data set for neural networks is formed, the training data set comprising the first size parameter, the second size parameter, an extension of the molten pool, a depth of a steam channel or a steam capillary at the position of the welding beam, at least one gap dimension, at least one of the value or data sets from previous experiments (par. 96 to 100 teach training a neural network to detect defective patterns in the weld pool, of which said defects are taught in par. 2).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to provide automated and adaptive closed loop and feedback on the quality of a weld bead to allow a machine to self-correct for irregularities which has the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 47).
Regarding claim 8,
Zeadan teaches, except where struck through,
A welding device for welding grouped conductor ends of a component for an electrical machine (welding ends of conductors in a stator package, abstract), comprising:
a welding means for welding energy input to grouped conductor ends (laser beam for welding, abstract);
a measuring means for detecting a relative position of a first conductor end and a second conductor end of grouped conductor ends by position measurement using optical measurement methods (camera detects the dimensions and position of the conductors, par. 25), wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding, wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position, and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach: wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding, wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position, and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value..
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches a welding method, which can be applied to laser welding (par. 25) and therefore further teaches
wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, size is capable of being a first parameter) and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter), wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position (par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding, and par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter), and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value (par. 21-22 and par. 49-50 teach adjusting arc intensity).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 8, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means and control means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein the measuring means is at least one of
9.1 configured for evaluating a welding result; or
9.2 comprises a comparing means for comparing the value with a predetermined limit value.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches
wherein the measuring means is at least one of
9.1 configured for evaluating a welding result (par. 21, par. 23, par. 52, par. 55, par. 60-68 teach computing device 150 performing the comparing at step 312, and par. 72 to 75 comparing the received optical signals 136 which are taught to be from optical fibers 132) ; or
9.2 comprises a comparing means for comparing the value with a predetermined limit value.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 9, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 10,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
10.1 measuring means for detecting the first size parameter using optical measuring methods;
10.2 measuring means for detecting the first size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
10.3 measuring means for performing optical coherence tomography;
10.4 measuring means for arranging a double cross relative to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, and arranging lines of the double cross relative to each other at a predetermined distance;
10.5 measuring means for forming a double cross, which is assigned to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, larger than a welding contour;
10.6 measuring means for forming a double cross such that a measuring beam, which is guidable along the lines of the double cross, has at least one of predetermined jump times or jump paths;
10.7 measuring means for alternately guiding a measuring beam to different conductor ends;
10.8 measuring means for directing a measuring beam onto the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
10.9 measuring means for directing a measuring beam to a first end region of a first conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, and to a second end region of a second conductor end of the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
10.10 measuring means for tracing a measuring beam along a double cross that is assigned to the grouped conductor ends, the double cross respectively comprising two lines which are arranged in the x- and y-directions and are arranged at a predetermined distance from one another;
10.11 measuring means for detecting a lateral extension of the molten pool, as a first size parameter, in a plane of the grouped conductor ends;
10.12 measuring means for detecting at least one input parameter, wherein a cross-sectional area of an end region of the group of conductor ends or at least one conductor end, a distance between the conductor ends, prior to welding, a height offset between the conductor ends, a tangential offset, or
a radial offset is detected as the at least one input parameter; or
10.13 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 10.1 to 10.12.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
10.1 measuring means for detecting the first size parameter using optical measuring methods (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, size is capable of being a first parameter);
10.2 measuring means for detecting the first size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
10.3 measuring means for performing optical coherence tomography;
10.4 measuring means for arranging a double cross relative to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, and arranging lines of the double cross relative to each other at a predetermined distance;
10.5 measuring means for forming a double cross, which is assigned to an end region of the grouped conductor ends, larger than a welding contour;
10.6 measuring means for forming a double cross such that a measuring beam, which is guidable along the lines of the double cross, has at least one of predetermined jump times or jump paths;
10.7 measuring means for alternately guiding a measuring beam to different conductor ends;
10.8 measuring means for directing a measuring beam onto the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
10.9 measuring means for directing a measuring beam to a first end region of a first conductor end of the grouped conductor ends, and to a second end region of a second conductor end of the grouped conductor ends in at least two dimensions;
10.10 measuring means for tracing a measuring beam along a double cross that is assigned to the grouped conductor ends, the double cross respectively comprising two lines which are arranged in the x- and y-directions and are arranged at a predetermined distance from one another;
10.11 measuring means for detecting a lateral extension of the molten pool, as a first size parameter, in a plane of the grouped conductor ends;
10.12 measuring means for detecting at least one input parameter, wherein a cross-sectional area of an end region of the group of conductor ends or at least one conductor end, a distance between the conductor ends, prior to welding, a height offset between the conductor ends, a tangential offset, or
a radial offset is detected as the at least one input parameter; or
10.13 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 10.1 to 10.12
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 10, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 11,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
11.1 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter using optical measuring methods;
11.2 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
11.3 measuring means for performing optical coherence tomography;
11.4 measuring means for guiding a measuring beam to a position of a welding beam;
11.5 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter at a position of a welding beam;
11.6 measuring means for detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of a welding beam;
11.7 measuring means for detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of a welding beam in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
11.8 measuring means for detecting a gap depth during gap crossing of at least one of a measuring beam or a welding beam;
11.9 measuring means for detecting a molten pool depth;
11.10 measuring means for detecting a molten pool depth on a surface of at least one conductor end or of the grouped conductor ends;
11.11 measuring means for detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between conductor ends of the grouped conductor ends, prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter for determining the value is detected;
or 11.12 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 11.1 to 11.11.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
11.1 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter using optical measuring methods (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter);
11.2 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter by means of time-of-flight measurement of reflected radiation;
11.3 measuring means for performing optical coherence tomography;
11.4 measuring means for guiding a measuring beam to a position of a welding beam;
11.5 measuring means for detecting the second size parameter at a position of a welding beam;
11.6 measuring means for detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of a welding beam;
11.7 measuring means for detecting a depth of a keyhole or a vapor capillary or a vapor channel at a position of a welding beam in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends;
11.8 measuring means for detecting a gap depth during gap crossing of at least one of a measuring beam or a welding beam;
11.9 measuring means for detecting a molten pool depth;
11.10 measuring means for detecting a molten pool depth on a surface of at least one conductor end or of the grouped conductor ends;
11.11 measuring means for detecting at least one input parameter, wherein as the at least one input parameter a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end is detected, a distance between conductor ends of the grouped conductor ends, prior to welding is detected, a height offset between the conductor ends is detected, a tangential offset is detected, a radial offset is detected, wherein the at least one input parameter for determining the value is detected;
or 11.12 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 11.1 to 11.11.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 11, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 12,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
12.1 a measuring means for determining a molten pool dimension of the molten pool as a value of the molten pool;
12.2 a measuring means for determining an increase in a melt volume as a value of the molten pool;
12.3 a measuring means for determining a connection cross-section of the grouped conductor ends as a value of the molten pool; or
12.4 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 12.1 to 12.3.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
12.1 a measuring means for determining a molten pool dimension of the molten pool as a value of the molten pool (par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding, and par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter);
12.2 a measuring means for determining an increase in a melt volume as a value of the molten pool;
12.3 a measuring means for determining a connection cross-section of the grouped conductor ends as a value of the molten pool; or
12.4 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 12.1 to 12.3.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 12, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 13,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
Zeadan further teaches:
wherein the measuring means is selected from a group of measuring means comprising:
13.1 measuring means for position measurement by means of time-of- flight measurement of reflected radiation;
13.2 measuring means for performing optical coherence tomography;
13.3 measuring means for alternately directing a measuring beam to different conductor end groups having has at least one grouped conductor end;
13.4 measuring means for measuring intervals or distances in at least two dimensions at a conductor end group (camera detects the dimensions and position of the conductors and by detecting dimensions it is inherent to be completed in at least two dimensions, the position detection also inherently requires at least to dimensions as is known in the art for spatial identification par. 25);
13.5 measuring means for measuring an interval or a distance in a direction of an extension of conductor sections comprising the conductor end;
13.6 measuring means for determining a distance between the conductor ends;
13.7 measuring means for measuring a height offset between the conductor ends;
13.8 measuring means for determining a cross-sectional area of an end region of the grouped conductor ends or of at least one conductor end of the conductor ends;
13.9 measuring means for determining a tangential offset between the conductor ends;
13.10 measuring means for determining a radial offset between the conductor ends;
13.11 measuring means for measuring at least one of a thickness, a width or a height of the end region at the conductor end group; or
13.12 a combination of one or more of the measuring means according to 13.1 to 13.12.
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 13, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 14,
The primary combination teaches, The welding method according to claim 8 (as discussed above).
Zeadan further teaches:
wherein the control means is configured to control the welding means for:
14.1 directing a welding beam to the grouped conductor ends;
14.2 guiding a welding beam along a symmetrical contour;
14.3 guiding a welding beam along an elliptical contour;
14.4 forming a fusion ring by means of a welding beam;
14.5 forming a fusion blanket by means of a welding beam;
14.6 forming a weld bead (bridge 34 where the method of forming the weld bead is taught in par. 40-46);
14.7 starting the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
14.8 stopping the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
14.9 stopping the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends when the determined value reaches a limit value;
14.10 adjusting, by increasing or decreasing, the welding energy input to the grouped conductor ends;
14.11 applying a predetermined higher welding energy input to the conductor end extending further or higher in a main extension direction of the grouped conductor ends when there is a height offset between the conductor ends;
14.12 distributing a welding energy input according to a tangential offset between the conductor ends ; and/or
14.13 directing two welding beams to the grouped conductor ends, either sequentially or simultaneously, wherein one welding beam is assigned to one
conductor end of the grouped conductor ends and another welding beam is assigned to another conductor end of the grouped conductor ends;
14.14 detecting a point in time at which two individual molten pools combine into one molten pool, a first molten pool being assigned to a first conductor end and a second molten pool being assigned to the second conductor end; or
14.15 welding the conductor ends, at an end region or at an end face, in a parallel joint.
Regarding the functional limitations of claim 14, the applicant is respectfully reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof (e.g., the functions of a measuring means) during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 15,
The primary combination teaches, the welding process according claim 1 (as discussed above).
Zeadan teaches, except where struck through,
a welding means for welding energy input to grouped conductor ends (laser beam for welding, abstract);
a measuring means for detecting a relative position of a first conductor end and a second conductor end of grouped conductor ends by position measurement using optical measurement methods (camera is used to detect the positions of the conductors, par. 25),
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Zeadan does not teach:
A computer program product including machine-readable control instructions which, when loaded into a controller of a welding device for welding grouped conductor ends of a component for an electrical machine…nor…wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding, wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position, and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value, cause the welding device to perform the welding process according claim 1
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Wang teaches a welding method, which can be applied to laser welding (par. 25) and therefore further teaches
A computer program product (monitoring program 160) including machine-readable control instructions which (computer readable media 154), when loaded into a controller of a welding device (monitor computing device 150) for welding grouped conductor ends of a component for an electrical machine (par. 36to 38)…and…wherein the measuring means is further adapted to detect a first size parameter of a molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, size is capable of being a first parameter) and a second size parameter of the molten pool formed during welding (par. 20, 21 and 23 to 24 were par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter), wherein the measuring means is further configured to determine a value of the molten pool from the first size parameter, the second size parameter and the relative position (par. 23-24 teach determining melt pool geometry and par. 47 and Fig. 5A-B determine the shape of a welded portion after welding to determine if it was a good or bad welding, and par. 21 teaches “Optical signals received through the optical fibers at different locations may be processed so that weld geometry, such as size, shape, and location can be determined from the optical signal”, therefore, shape is capable of being a first parameter), and
a control means is configured to control a welding energy input to the conductor ends to be welded depending on the determined value (par. 21-22 and par. 49-50 teach adjusting arc intensity),.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Zeadan with the teachings of Wang to detect the shape of a welded portion to determine if the weld was good or bad and then adjust the laser parameters during welding. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the welding quality (Wang par. 21).
Conclusion
Applicant’s help is appreciated in reviewing all claims to ensure they conform to all US practice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761