DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-16 are 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.
Claim 9 recites “laser beam being positioned such and having a light energy absorbed by material of the workpiece within the RAZ so as to form a molten pool of material”. It is unclear “the laser beam being positioned such” means. It is unclear how the laser beam being positioned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963).
Regarding claim 9, Albert et al. discloses “a system” (figs.1-2 and abstract) “for deburring and chamfering a intended use. fig.1, 6 shows a workpiece having a top wall jointed with a side wall to formed a sharped edge. With respect to the term “the burred sharp edge” is treated as workpiece. MPEP 2115), the system comprising:
“a laser head” ([0031] The joining apparatus provided for carrying out the method according to the invention has a first sensor system for detecting the position of the joint relative to a processing head of the apparatus) configured to provide “a laser beam” (2) radiation affected zone (RAZ)” (fig.2 shows the radiation or heat affected zone), “the being positioned such and having a light energy absorbed by material of the workpiece within the RAZ so as to form a molten pool of material, the molten pool generating heat transferred to and liquefying burrs on the edge” (fig.2 show laser beam absorbed by the workpiece to form a molten pool and liquefying burrs on the edge. Examiner noted that the term “burrs on the edge” is considered as article to worked upon the apparatus. MPEP 2115. In addition, “burrs on the edge” depends on the intended use in the preamble); and
fig.2, the melted material cools after laser irradiation in order to form solidifying in the RAZ. Fig.2 shows a curved smooth surface layer chamfering the edge is formed),
Albert et al. is silent regarding a laser beam with wobble and focus the wobbling laser beam on a surface; the oscillating laser beam; an actuator supporting and guiding the laser head along the burred edge in a direction transverse to a plane of the wobble; wherein a wobbling amplitude is controlled to stop the wobbling laser beam from being guided beyond the edge.
Hioki et al. teaches “a laser beam with wobble and focus the wobbling laser beam on a surface; the oscillating laser beam; a wobbling amplitude is controlled” ([0039], i.e., a laser beam is applied such that the focusing point of the laser beam is elliptically moved within a predetermined range including i) a front end portion of a top surface W1b of the upper plate W1, ii) the distal end surface W1a of the upper plate W1, and iii) a portion of a top surface W2b of the lower plate W2. The predetermined range is an example of the laser-beam application region. Thus, the metallic material is melted, so that the upper plate W1 and the lower plate W2 are welded to each other. The welding technique of this kind is generally called laser wobbling welding); “an actuator supporting and guiding the laser head along the burred edge in a direction transverse to a plane of the wobble” ([0062], i.e., the arms 45, 46, 47 of the welding robot 4 are oscillated to move the locus center along the direction parallel to the weld line L. The actuator refers to 45, 46 and 47. Fig.2 shows the wobbling amplitude is controlled). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Albert et al. with Hioki et al., by adding Hioki et al.’s robotic arm with control algorithm to Albert et al.’s laser system, to achieve high-precision, 3D cutting on a workpiece.
Hara et al. teaches “a wobbling amplitude is controlled to stop the wobbling laser beam from being guided beyond the edge” (fig.1 shows laser beam L irradiate at multiple C shape (i.e., abstract, welded portions each having substantially C shape), these C shaped welding portion 4 which is considered a form of laser wobbling and the width of these C shapes is determined by the wobble amplitude. Fig.1 shows the C shape is not guided beyond the edge (i.e., the edge of upper workpiece 2b)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Albert et al. with Hara et al., by adding Hara et al.’s laser irradiation pattern algorithm to Albert et al.’s laser controller, to improved peel strength when weld a lap welded joint (para.0014 and para.0001) as taught by Hara et al.
Regarding claim 11, modified Albert et al. discloses “the wobbling amplitude is controlled so that the RAZ is located adjacent to or includes the burred edge” (Hara et al., fig.1 shows the wobbling amplitude is controlled so that the RAZ is located adjacent to the burred edge).
Regarding claim 15, modified Albert et al. discloses “the burred edge is straight or curved or a combination of straight and curved edge contours” (Albert et al., fig.1, 6 shows a workpiece having a top wall jointed with a side wall to formed a burred sharped edge).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963) as applied in claims 9, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Staupendahl (US 2015/0014286).
Regarding claim 10, modified Albert et al. discloses “generating the beam incident on the laser head” (Hioki et al., fig.1 shows the laser beam incident on components of the laser scanner 3).
Modified Albert et al. is silent regarding a solid state or CO2 laser source generating the beam incident on the laser head, and operating in a continuous way (QW), quasi QW or pulsed regime.
Staupendahl teaches “a solid state or CO2 laser source” ([0002] Modern solid-state laser systems (diode-pumped Nd:YAG lasers, disc lasers, fibre lasers, Ti:sapphire lasers, etc.) are characterised by a pulsability being variable in a wide range (from 100 fs via ps and ns to the .mu.s range), but in terms of cost and especially long-term experience in industrial use they are still far behind the CO.sub.2 lasers), and “operating in a continuous way (QW), quasi QW or pulsed regime” ([0040] 1. The Quasi-Axial-Mode-Free Continuously Operating Laser. [0045] In order to achieve the feedback required for a "normal" laser function, continuous as well as pulsed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Albert et al. with Staupendahl, by replacing Albert et al.’s laser source with Staupendahl’s laser source, to provide desired type of laser source. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Albert et al.’s laser source with Staupendahl’s laser source are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of emitting laser beam. MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963) as applied in claims 9, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Katayama et al. (US 2011/0095002).
Regarding claim 12, modified Albert et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the laser beam is generated with an average beam power varying between 100 W and 20 kW.
Katayama et al. teaches “the laser beam is generated with an average beam power varying between 100 W and 20 kW” ([0037] For example, in the case in which the irradiation power density and power of the laser are within the above-described ranges and where the irradiation spot diameter and defocus amount of the laser are approximately 0.3 mm and 15 mm, respectively, the traveling speed of laser irradiation is approximately 10 m/min for a laser power of 5 kW, approximately 11 m/min for a laser power of 7 kW, approximately 12 mm/min for a laser power of 10 kW, and approximately 15 m/min for a laser power of 13 kW). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Albert et al. with Katayama et al., by modifying Katayama et al.’s laser power according to Albert et al.’s laser power, based on the thickness of workpiece (para.0033-0037) as taught by Katayama et al.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963) as applied in claims 9, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of US Yang (20180214983) and Illana (EP 3441178).
Regarding claim 13, modified Albert et al. discloses “the laser head is configured with beam guiding and focusing optics, the beam guiding optics being operative to provide the laser beam with the wobbling amplitude” (Hioki et al., the laser head 3 is configured with beam guiding 46-47 and focusing optics 31 being operative to provide the laser beam with the wobbling amplitude (i.e., figs.2-3 show wobbling amplitude)) at a wobbling frequency
Modified Albert et al. is silent regarding the wobbling amplitude varying in a 0.1-5 mm at a wobbling frequency from 100 Hz to 2 KHz.
Yang teaches “the wobbling amplitude varying in a 0.1-5 mm at a wobbling frequency” ([0013], i.e., a preferred implementation involving the sinusoidal pattern includes repetitive waves having peak-to-peak amplitudes ranging from 0.1 mm to 6.0 mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Illana teaches “a wobbling frequency from 100 Hz to 2 KHz” ([0024], i.e., oscillating movement of the welding path has a frequency 400-1500 Hz). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Albert et al. with Illana, by modifying Albert et al.’s oscillating frequency according to Illana’s oscillating frequency, to allow for broader, stronger, and more consistent welds for weld quality.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963) as applied in claims 9, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Illana (EP 3441178) and Matsumoto (US 2019/0126404).
Regarding claim 14, modified Albert et al. discloses “at least one computer executing software stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (fig.1, 5 and 51. [0034] Information (i.e., information, such as a turning angle of each of the joint 42, 43, 44) for moving the laser scanner 3 toward a to-be-welded spot (i.e., a spot to be welded) is stored in the robot controller 5 in advance through off-line teaching. [0035] The robot controller 5 includes a laser beam scanning control unit 51 configured to output a control signal for moving the laser-beam application position on the workpiece W. The laser beam scanning control unit 51 is configured to output a control signal to the scanning motor 33. When the scanning motor 33 operates in response to the control signal, each mirror 31 is turned about the turnable shaft 32 to move the laser-beam application position on the workpiece W) “for controlling the wobbling amplitude” ([0042] The elliptically-shaped locus of the laser-beam application position will be described below in more detail. For example, when the upper plate W1 and the lower plate W2 each have a plate-thickness of 1.5 mm to 3.0 mm, a length (amplitude) A of the elliptical shape of the locus in its major axis direction (i.e., an up-down direction in FIG. 3), , “beam power” ([0043], i.e., A laser power is set to a predetermined value within a range from 4000 W to 6000 W) and “trajectory of laser head [0034] Information (i.e., information, such as a turning angle of each of the joint 42, 43, 44) for moving the laser scanner 3. This suggest the trajectory of the laser head along the edge), and “a multi-axis robotic arm supporting and guiding the laser head along the burred edge at a controlled velocity” ([0043], i.e., A moving speed of the laser-beam application position along the elliptically-shaped locus is set to a predetermined value within a range from 2500 cm/min to 5000 cm/min. Fig.3 further shows the advancing direction (arrow X)).
Modified Albert et al. is silent regarding wobbling frequency and trajectory laser head displacement.
Illana teaches “a wobbling frequency” ([0024], i.e., oscillating movement of the welding path has a frequency 400-1500 Hz). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Albert et al. with Illana, by modifying Albert et al.’s oscillating frequency according to Illana’s oscillating frequency, to allow for broader, stronger, and more consistent welds for weld quality.
Matsumoto teaches “trajectory laser head displacement” (fig.6, S1 start of radiation (starting point of radiation path) … S8 end of radiation (ending point of radiation path). Fig.7 shows a length between two points. Examiner noted that displacement is always involved mathematically in order to calculate the position differences or displacement for a length between minimum value of coordinate and maximum value of coordinate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Albert et al. with Matsumoto, by adding Matsumoto’s trajectory laser head displacement parameter to Albert et al.’s laser system, to determine if radiation range is proper (para.0074-0076) as taught by Matsumoto.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 2017/0259373) in view of Hioki et al. (US 2018/0361507), Hara et al. (US 2019/0076963) as applied in claims 9, 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Kancharla (US 2015/0306706).
Regarding claim 16, modified Albert et al. disclose “the workpiece is an Al alloy wheel hub” (Albert et al., workpiece. MPEP 2115) treated by irradiated by “the wobbling laser beam” (Hioki et al., fig.2 shows the wobbling laser beam)
Kancharla teaches “generated by a continuous wave (CW) fiber laser” ([0027], i.e., the fiber laser 110 may be a continuous wave (CW) fiber laser such as the CW single mode Yttterbium fiber lasers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Albert et al. with Kancharla, by replacing Albert et al.’s laser source with Kancharla’s laser source, to provide desired type of laser source. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Albert et al.’s laser source with Kancharla’s laser source are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of emitting laser beam. MPEP 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 103 … As such, two things are happening: (1) the wobbled laser beam is positioned such that the molten material of the RAZ generates heat that is transferred to the burrs on the edge of the workpiece (so the beam cannot be that far from the edge), and (2) the amplitude of the wobble is such that the laser beam does not go beyond the edge of the workpiece. These two features go hand-in-hand. None of Albert, Hioki or Hara address the problem of burrs, and in fact the term "burr" is not even mentioned in any of these references. Albert is not directed to addressing burrs on workpieces that have undergone a material processing operation. Rather, Albert performs the actual material processing operation (welding), and specifically teaches welding of two workpieces that are to be lap-welded. The problem addressed by Albert is the varying gap between the two workpieces along an anticipated lap joint, and Albert resolves this by oscillating the laser beam such that at least a part of the weld pool flows down onto the lower workpiece [0061]. Nowhere does Albert discuss addressing burrs formed on an edge of either workpiece or keeping a wobbling amplitude of the laser beam so as to not go beyond the edge of the edge of the workpiece as recited in the subject claims. Rather, Albert directs the beam across the entire lap joint, as shown in FIG. 2, including the edge of the top workpiece. Hioki teaches the same (e.g., see FIG. 2 and paragraph [0047]), except that the laser beam moves in elliptical circles about a locus center across the surfaces of the lap joint. Like Albert, this motion includes the edge of the top workpiece … Nor is the weld in Hara tied to forming a RAZ that is positioned such that heat is generated and transferred to liquify a burr on the edge of the workpiece. As will appreciated by one skilled in the art of laser welding, "wobbling" refers to moving the focused laser spot in a small, rapid pattern as it travels along the weld path,”
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because with respect to the term “the burred sharp edge” is treated as workpiece. MPEP 2115. Fig.2 of Albert shows the laser beam is moving to the edge portion of the workpiece in order to melt the portion of edge portion. However, fig.2 of Albert does not clearly show if the laser beam passes beyond the edge portion. Hara et al. teaches the C-shaped wobbling amplitude does not pass beyond the edge portion. There is nothing in the claim define specific “wobbling” shape. That is, multiple C-shapes formed by a laser beam considered as C-shape wobble path.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights