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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6-9 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 6 recites the limitation "the relative movement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what components/features have relative movement. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the limitation will be interpreted as requiring relative movement between any the laser head and either of the first or second component.
Claim 7 in the preamble recites “for joining at least two components of a fuel cell, including providing a first component of the fuel cell and providing at least one second component of the fuel cell, and directing a pulsed laser beam of a laser apparatus onto a rotating mirrored polygon wheel, by which the laser beam forms a joint line consisting of a plurality of overlapping pointlike and/or line-shaped joining locations on the components”, then the body of the claim repeats verbatim or nearly verbatim some of the recited structure of the preamble, such as “a laser apparatus”, “a rotatably driven mirrored polygon wheel”, “a pulsed laser beam”, and “a joint line of a plurality of overlapping pointlike and/or line-shaped joining locations on the components” which renders the claim indefinite due to the duplicative limitations. For the purpose of clarity, the Examiner suggests positively reciting the all claimed structure outside of the preamble. For examination purposes, as best understood by the Examiner in view of the specification the structure outside of the preamble will be interpreted as the only structure required for the device of claim 7. The limitations, in lines 1-6, “for carrying out a method…joining locations on the components” will be interpreted as intended use.
Claims 8 and 9 are also indefinite by virtue of their dependency on Claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim Min Sun (KR 20070107384) in view of Nomaru et al. (US 20160096237), hereinafter; “Nomaru”. The English translation of KR20070107384 provided is referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 1
Sim Min Sun teaches:
A method for joining at least two components(110,120) of a fuel cell(P[0002]), comprising:
providing a first component(first separator plate 110) of the fuel cell and providing at least one second component(second separate plate 120) of the fuel cell; and
directing a pulsed laser beam(P[0010], P[0011]) of a laser apparatus(100) onto the flange portions(111,121) of the separator plates by which the laser beam forms a joint line(dashed line of Fig 4b) consisting of a plurality of overlapping pointlike joining locations(P1,P2,P2; Fig 4b) on the components(the overlapping joining locations P1,P2,P3 represent respective laser pulses P1, P2, P3 that overlap to form a continuous weld; P[0011]).
Sim Min Sun fails to teach:
directing the pulsed laser beam onto a rotating mirrored polygon wheel
Nomaru teaches:
An analogous method for joining two components using a laser processing apparatus(1) that directs a pulsed laser beam(LB) onto a rotating mirrored polygon wheel(58) to deflect the optical beam of the laser to be able to control the frequency and spacing of the pulses(P[0014]-P[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun by replacing the laser apparatus of Sim Min Sun with the laser apparatus of Nomaru which directs the pulsed laser beam onto a rotating mirrored polygon wheel before applying it to the workpiece to enable better control of the frequency and spacing of the laser pulses during the welding process.
In Regard to Claim 2
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above)
Nomaru further teaches
wherein the components and the laser beam are moved relative to each other(via chuck table mechanism 3; P[0025]), and a two-dimensional joint contour is formed by the relative movement(Fig 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun to incorporate the teachings of Nomaru by using a chuck table mechanism to secure the workpiece while moving the workpiece relative to the laser apparatus in two dimension space to create precise two-dimensional welds(P[0024]-P[0027]).
In Regard to Claim 3
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the relative movement is created by a feed of a transport device for transporting the components(chuck table mechanism 3 feeds the workpiece in the X and Y directions relative to the laser apparatus; P[0024]-P[0027] of Nomaru).
In Regard to Claim 4
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 2(see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein in order to form the joint line, which includes a portion oriented perpendicular to the feed direction of the transport device, the laser beam partially broadened by the polygon wheel is deflected by an adjustable optical deflection device in dependence on the feed(53 includes a telecentric lens 531 which is indirectly adjusted by the pulsed laser oscillator 51, power adjusting means 52 and control means 7).
In Regard to Claim 7
Sim Min Sun teaches:
A device for carrying out a method for joining at least two components(110,120) of a fuel cell(Fig 2; P[0002]), including providing a first component(first separator plate 110) of the fuel cell and providing at least one second component(second separator plate 120) of the fuel cell, and directing a pulsed laser beam(P[0010], P[0011]) of a laser apparatus(100) onto the flange portions(111,121) of the separator plates by which the laser beam forms a joint line(dashed line of Fig 4b) consisting of a plurality of overlapping pointlike joining locations(P1,P2,P2; Fig 4b) on the components(the overlapping joining locations P1,P2,P3 represent respective laser pulses P1, P2, P3 that overlap to form a continuous weld; P[0011]), the device comprising:
a laser apparatus(100);
Sim Min Sun fails to teach:
directing the pulsed laser beam onto a rotatably driven mirrored polygon wheel
Nomaru teaches:
An analogous method for joining two components using a laser processing apparatus(1) that directs a pulsed laser beam(LB) onto a rotatably driven mirrored polygon wheel(58) to deflect the optical beam of the laser to be able to control the frequency and spacing of the pulses(P[0014]-P[0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun by replacing the laser apparatus of Sim Min Sun with the laser apparatus of Nomaru which directs the pulsed laser beam onto a rotatably driven mirrored polygon wheel before applying it to the workpiece to enable better control of the frequency and spacing of the laser pulses during the welding process.
In Regard to Claim 8
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The device according to claim 7(see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein a transport device is present and adapted to move the components relative to the laser beam impinging on the components in order to form a two-dimensional joint contour(chuck table mechanism 3 feeds the workpiece in the X and Y directions relative to the laser apparatus; P[0024]-P[0027] of Nomaru).
In Regard to Claim 11
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the method for joining at least two components of a fuel cell is a method for joining two single plates of a fuel cell to make a bipolar plate(110 and 120 are single plates that are welded together to form a “metal separator” which is also known as a “bipolar plate”; P[0011]; Fig 2).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru and in further view of Nakata (US 5399835).
In Regard to Claim 5
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 4(see rejection of claim 4 above), which forms a joint line on the components oriented perpendicular to the feed direction(Fig 4 of Nomaru).
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru fails to teach:
wherein the optical deflection device is moved with a speed compensating for the feed rate
Nakata teaches:
An analogous laser apparatus used for welding and having movable optical deflection device(2) that is moved with a speed compensating for a feed rate(Col 4, ln. 39-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru to incorporate the teachings of Nakata to utilize a movable optical deflection device to maintain the laser beam incident on the optical deflection device within a workable range(Col 2, ln. 15-30).
In Regard to Claim 9
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The device according to claim 8(see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein an optical deflection device(53) is placed downstream from the polygon wheel in the path of the laser beam(Fig 2 of Nomaru), which is adapted to deflect the laser beam(P[0029]) of Nomaru).
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru fails to teach:
the optical deflection device is movable in dependence on a feed rate of the transport device
Nakata teaches:
An analogous laser apparatus used for welding and having movable optical deflection device(2) that is moved with a speed compensating for a feed rate(Col 4, ln. 39-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru to incorporate the teachings of Nakata to utilize a movable optical deflection device to maintain the laser beam incident on the optical deflection device within a workable range(Col 2, ln. 15-30).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru and in further view of Stork Genannt Wersborg et al. (US 9802271), hereinafter: “Stork”.
In Regard to Claims 6 and 10
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru teaches:
The method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above) and The device of claim 7(see rejection of claim 7 above)
Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru fails to teach:
wherein the relative movement is generated by moving a movable laser head of the laser apparatus with entrainment of the polygon wheel;
wherein a movable laser head of the laser apparatus is present, which is movably mounted with entrainment of the polygon wheel.
Stork teaches:
An analogous laser apparatus used for welding and having movable laser head(2) and a movable workpiece table(26; Col 12, ln. 20-30) that is moved with a speed compensating for a feed rate(Col 23, ln. 15-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sim Min Sun in view of Nomaru to incorporate the teachings of Stork to utilize a movable laser head in combination with the movable workpiece table to improve weld quality and processing speed(Col 14, ln. 42 to Col 15, ln. 25 and Col 15, ln. 55 to Col 16, ln. 32).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190366877 A1
BLERSCH; ROBERT et al.
US 20050133568 A1
Sigler, David R. et al.
US 20160096237 A1
Nomaru; Keiji et al.
US 6368424 B1
Sakai; Tatsuhiko et al.
US 4468551 A
Neiheisel; Gary L.
KR 20250013102 A
HADANO YUJI et al.
The above references are cited for teaching laser welding apparatuses with features similar to that of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Court D. Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745