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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 June 2026 has been entered.
A new drawing objection has been provided.
The Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. The previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been
A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been provided based on the Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the disputed portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
New rejections are provided for the claims, which are not a result of amendments made by the Applicant. As a result, the current Office action is in a non-final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 26 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 3-4 have been cancelled.
Claims 1. 5-12, and 14-19 are pending.
Drawings
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 “repair weld” of claims 1, 9, and 16 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.
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 the following:
“scanner control module” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitations are “configured to operate a three-dimensional scanner.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “circuit” with “hardware” and “code” or “software” (paragraphs 0069-0071).
“system control module” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitations are “configured to compare the measured alignment of the tips to a predetermined alignment range, and configured to identify a weld schedule.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “circuit” with “hardware” and “code” or “software” (paragraphs 0069-0071).
“system control module” in claim 6
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “configured to set a height of the laser welder and a focal point of the laser welder based on the average heights and the height ranges of the tips.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation includes a “robotic arm.”
“laser welder control module” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitations are “configured to operate a laser welder to weld together only the tips aligned within the predetermined alignment range in accordance with the weld schedule identified by the system control module.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “circuit” with “hardware” and “code” or “software” (paragraphs 0069-0071).
“three-dimensional scanner” in claims 1, 9, and 16
The generic placeholder is “scanner” (means for scanning) and the functional limitation is “to scan the tips of the different wires and measure alignment of the tips in X, Y, and Z directions of a coordinate plane.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “camera.”
“rotary stage control module” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “module” and the functional limitation is “configured to control rotation of the rotary stage to synchronize rotation with the welding and the scanning.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “circuit” with “hardware” and “code” or “software” (paragraphs 0069-0071).
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 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, 5-12, and 14-19 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite: “… to perform a repair weld in accordance with the repair weld schedule.” It is unclear what is intended in claiming a “repair weld.” The examiner initially understood this term to be defined as a repair that is made to a weld. For example, claim 1 recites: “a repair weld in accordance with the repair weld schedule for each one of the welds in need of repair.” However, page 11 of the Arguments filed 26 June 2026 states the following:
“As explained at paragraphs [0062] - [0064] of Applicant's application as filed, as set forth in independent claims 1, 9, and 16, the "repair weld" is distinct from the weld that welds the tips together. For example, the "repair weld" does not weld the tips together. Instead, the "repair weld" modifies the tips to bring the tips within the predetermined alignment range required for the tips to be welded together.”
If an “example” of “repair weld” is modifying the tips before they are welded together, then it is unclear how this example can be a repair to a weld since there is no weld. In other words, the examiner understands a “repair weld” as a repair that happens after a weld is made. However, the Applicant seems to consider a “repair weld” as something that takes place before the weld is made. Notably, the Applicant does not define attempt to define a “repair weld” in these arguments, but instead only provides an “example” of what a repair weld is. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “repair weld,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claims 5-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohri et al. (US-20220118559-A1) in view of Wang et al. (US-20210031297-A1), Ryan et al. (US-20220161361-A1), and Peschina (US-20220014078-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mohri teaches a system (repair welding system 1000a), the system comprising:
a scanner control module (inspection device control unit 25, fig. 2; processor 21 includes software and hardware, paras 0065; inspection device control unit 25 is construed as being a circuit, para 0072) configured to operate a three-dimensional scanner (shape detection unit 500, fig. 2; “camera,” para 0055; “three-dimensional shape measurement sensor,” para 0055; the inspection device is controlled by the inspection device control unit 25, fig. 2 and para 0072);
a system control module (determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, fig. 2; processors 21 and 31 includes software and hardware, paras 0065 and 0080; determination units 37 and program editing unit 12a are construed as being a circuit);
a laser welder control module (robot control unit 26, fig. 2; paras 0065 and 0073; processor 21 includes software and hardware; robot control unit 26 is construed as being a circuit) configured to operate a laser welder (welding torch 400, fig. 2; “laser welding,” para 0049);
wherein, after welding the acceptably aligned tips (step 101, fig. 3):
the scanner control module (inspection device control unit 25, fig. 2) is configured to operate the three- dimensional scanner (“a function of controlling the shape detection unit 500 based on a control signal related to inspection corresponding to the welded portion received from the robot control device 2,” para 0080) to scan a plurality of welds (“plurality of welded portions,” para 0101) and measure characteristics of each weld (step 102, fig. 3; para 0093) including at least one of height (“height,” para 0085), volume (not explicitly disclosed), radius (“width,” para 0085), and weld size (“shape data,” para 0055);
the system control module (determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, fig. 2; specifically, determination unit 37) is configured to compare the measured characteristics of each one of the welds to predetermined weld tolerances (“the determination unit 37 compares the shape data of the welding bead to be inspected with master data recorded in the memory 32,” para 0094) to determine whether each one of the welds falls within the predetermined weld tolerances (within the “threshold,” para 0094) or is in need of repair (“exceeds the predetermined threshold,” para 0094);
for each one of the welds in need of repair, the system control module (determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, fig. 2; specifically, program editing unit 23a) is configured to identify a repair weld schedule (step 103, fig. 3; program editing unit 23a generates a “repair welding program,” para 0104) based on the measured characteristics of each one of the welds (“related to a defective portion,” para 0067); and
the laser welder control module (robot control unit 26, fig. 2) is configured to operate the laser welder (para 0073; manipulator 200 controls the torch 400, para 0051) to perform a repair weld in accordance with the repair weld schedule for each one of the welds in need of repair (step 104, fig. 3; para 0097).
Mohri, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
1302
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mohri does not explicitly disclose a system for welding together tips of different wires arranged about a motor stator; a three-dimensional scanner to scan the tips of the different wires and measure alignment of the tips in X, Y, and Z directions of a coordinate plane; a system control module configured to compare the measured alignment of the tips to a predetermined alignment range, and configured to identify a weld schedule for each of the tips that fall within the predetermined alignment range; a laser welder control module configured to operate a laser welder to weld together only the tips aligned within the predetermined alignment range in accordance with the weld schedule identified by the system control module; and a rotary stage control module in cooperation with a rotary stage that is configured to support the motor stator and rotate the motor stator during scanning and welding, the rotary stage control module configured to control rotation of the rotary stage to synchronize rotation with the laser welder control module and the scanner control module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Wang teaches a system (fig. 2) for welding together tips of different wires (“at least two hairpin tips,” para 0006; fig. 1) arranged about a motor stator (stator assembly 10, fig. 2); a three-dimensional scanner (cameras 46 and 50, fig. 2; para 0030) to scan the tips of the different wires and measure alignment of the tips in X, Y, and Z directions of a coordinate plane (figs. 7-8; para 0030); a system control module (control system 62, fig. 2) configured to compare the measured alignment of the tips (“alignment measurements,” para 0031;“Δx, Δy, Δz,” are used for determining angular tilts, para 0039; using these offsets as ranges are disclosed in para 0050 of the Specification in the Instant Application), and configured to identify a weld schedule (weld schedules 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) for each of the tips (“(Δx, Δy, Δz) data for these two hairpins or structures 24 may be utilized to determine the size, shape and angular orientation of the laser beam,” para 0039); a laser welder control module (robotic system 58, fig. 2) configured to operate a laser welder to weld together the tips aligned within the predetermined alignment range in accordance with the weld schedule identified by the system control module (control system 62 determines the weld schedule and controls the robotic system, paras 0032-0035).
Wang, fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
654
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Wang, by using the inspection control device unit 25 and shape detection unit 500, as taught by Mohri, to measure hairpin tips prior to welding, as taught by Wang, and by using the determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, as taught by Mohri, to measure offsets that are used to determine a welding schedule for the hairpin tips of a stator, as taught by Wang, in order to adjust for misalignments that may exist in the tips of hairpins in a stator assembly, because misalignments can cause defective weld joints that can result in open or short circuits in the stator assembly of an electric motor, which can be a time-consuming and tedious task to repair (Wang, para 0002).
Mohri/Wang do not explicitly disclose a predetermined alignment range and a laser welder control module configured to operate a laser welder to weld together only the tips aligned within the predetermined range; and a rotary stage control module in cooperation with a rotary stage that is configured to support the motor stator and rotate the motor stator during scanning and welding, the rotary stage control module configured to control rotation of the rotary stage to synchronize rotation with the laser welder control module and the scanner control module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Ryan teaches a predetermined alignment range (“the mismatch parameter can be ‘zero’ when no mismatch is detected,” para 0056; construed as comparing these mismatches to a range of zero; similar to Wang, Ryan teaches identifying “at least one geometric Δx, Δy, and/or Δz value, para 0056; figs. 4D-4G) and a laser welder control module (laser welding system 22, fig. 5) configured to operate a laser welder (laser source 210, fig. 5) to weld together only the tips aligned within the predetermined range (fig. 6C; the tips are only welded together when there is a mismatch of “zero,” as opposed to figs. 6A-6B; paras 0056 and 0058).
Ryan, fig. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
430
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohr/Wang, in view of the teachings of Ryan, by using a two-step welding process 310 and 320, as taught by Ryan in fig. 10, instead of a one-step welding process 150, as taught by Wang in fig. 9, where the tips are welded across the joint line if there is no mismatch but if there is a mismatch, then the tips are compensated for by providing weld segments towards but not overlapping a joint line prior to the weld step 320, for the advantage of ensuring a uniform weld shape that provides a continuous electrical path through the stator winding for each hairpin pair (Ryan, para 0067).
Mohri/Wang/Ryan do not explicitly disclose a rotary stage control module in cooperation with a rotary stage that is configured to support the motor stator and rotate the motor stator during scanning and welding, the rotary stage control module configured to control rotation of the rotary stage to synchronize rotation with the laser welder control module and the scanner control module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Peschina teaches a rotary stage control module (rotational drive 28, fig. 1; construed as being controlled by the program editing unit 23a taught by Mohri) in cooperation with a rotary stage (support structure 4, fig. 1) that is configured to support the motor stator (stator 3, fig. 4b) and rotate (para 0063) the motor stator during scanning and welding (“the free ends 2 a are welded successively in pairs; for this, the support structure 4 may be rotated about a vertical rotational axis,” para 0079), the rotary stage control module configured to control rotation of the rotary stage (the rotational drive 28 controls rotation of the support structure 4, para 0065) to synchronize rotation with the laser welder control module and the scanner control module (during step 104, the stator is rotated to weld successive pairs of bar conductors, para 0079; construed such that the support structure 4 is rotated successively to inspect and weld the pairs of hairpin tips, as taught by Wang).
Peschina, fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
889
591
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Peschina, by using a support structure 4, as taught by Peschina, to rotate the stator 10, as taught by Wang, such that the support structure was controlled by the processor 21, as taught by Mohri, in order to use a support structure that facilitates rotation of the bars in the stator about a rotational axis, for the advantage of using a support structure that arranges the welding device directly below the laser, so that the free ends can be easily welded (Peschina, para 0027).
Regarding claim 7, Mohri teaches wherein the three-dimensional scanner (shape detection unit 500, fig. 2) includes a metrology laser (“laser light source,” para 0055; used for imaging the welded portion, construed as a metrology laser).
Regarding claim 8, Mohri teaches wherein the laser welder (torch 400, fig. 2) is mounted to, and maneuverable by, a robotic arm (manipulator 200, fig. 2).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohri et al. (US-20220118559-A1) in view of Wang et al. (US-20210031297-A1) and Ryan et al. (US-20220161361-A1), and Peschina (US-20220014078-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US-20220395923-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mohri teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein, prior to welding: the scanner control module is configured to operate the three-dimensional scanner to measure average heights and height ranges of the tips; and the system control module is configured to set heights of the welds based on the average heights and height ranges of the tips of the motor stator.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Wang teaches wherein, prior to welding (block 130 takes place prior to block 150, fig. 9; para 0036): the scanner control module (control system 62, fig. 2) is configured to operate the three-dimensional scanner (cameras 46 and 50, fig. 2; para 0030) to height ranges of the tips (heights in x, y, and z directions, para 0027); and the system control module is configured to set heights of the welds based on the average heights and height ranges of the tips of the motor stator (heights of weld schedules are set based on the heights in the x, y, and z directions, fig. 3A-6C; paras 0031-0032; the welds in figs. 3A-6C are set to intersect the halfway points of the top of the hairpins, which are construed as the “claimed average heights”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Wang, by using the inspection control device unit 25 and shape detection unit 500, as taught by Mohri, to measure hairpin tips prior to welding, as taught by Wang, and by using the determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, as taught by Mohri, to measure heights that are used to determine a welding schedule for the hairpin tips of a stator, as taught by Wang, in order to adjust for misalignments that may exist in the tips of hairpins in a stator assembly, because misalignments can cause defective weld joints that can result in open or short circuits in the stator assembly of an electric motor, which can be a time-consuming and tedious task to repair (Wang, para 0002).
Mohri/Wang do not explicitly disclose measuring average heights of the tips.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Hoffman teaches measuring average heights of the tips (lines M3 and M4, fig. 2a; these lines are located at the midpoints of each conductor in the conductor end group 20, fig. 1; construed as being average heights).
Hoffman, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
334
414
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri/Wang, in view of the teachings of Hoffman, by calculating the heights along lines M1 to M4, as taught by Hoffman, of the hairpins, as taught by Wang, in order to use the height offset between conductors as an input parameter for determining how much weld energy should be applied during the weld (Hoffman, para 0235).
Regarding claim 6, Mohri teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein, prior to welding: the scanner control module is configured to operate the three-dimensional scanner to measure average heights and height ranges of the tips; and the system control module is configured to set a height of the laser welder and a focal point of the laser welder based on the average heights and the height ranges of the tips.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Wang teaches wherein, prior to welding (block 130 takes place prior to block 150, fig. 9; para 0036): the scanner control module (control system 62, fig. 2) is configured to operate the three-dimensional scanner (cameras 46 and 50, fig. 2; para 0030) to height ranges of the tips (heights in x, y, and z directions, para 0027); and the system control module is configured to set a heights of the laser welder and a focal point of the laser welder based on the average heights and height ranges of the tips of the motor stator (the focal point is set based on the heights of the structures 24, para 0035; the welds in 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C intersect with the average heights of the structures 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Wang, by using the inspection control device unit 25 and shape detection unit 500, as taught by Mohri, to measure hairpin tips prior to welding, as taught by Wang, and by using the determination unit 37 and program editing unit 23a, as taught by Mohri, to measure heights that are used to determine the focal point of the laser beam, as taught by Wang, in order to set the focal point of the laser beam such that it coincides with the height of the set of tips of hairpins 24, because misalignments can cause defective weld joints that can result in open or short circuits in the stator assembly of an electric motor, which can be a time-consuming and tedious task to repair (Wang, para 0002).
Mohri/Wang do not explicitly disclose measuring average heights of the tips.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Hoffman teaches measuring average heights of the tips (lines M3 and M4, fig. 2a; these lines are located at the midpoints of each conductor in the conductor end group 20, fig. 1; construed as being average heights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri/Wang, in view of the teachings of Hoffman, by calculating the heights along lines M1 to M4, as taught by Hoffman, of the hairpins, as taught by Wang, in order to use the height offset between conductors as an input parameter for determining how much weld energy should be applied during the weld (Hoffman, para 0235).
Claims 9, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20210031297-A1) in view of Ryan et al. (US-20220161361-A1), Mohri et al. (US-20220118559-A1), and Peschina (US-20220014078-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches a method for welding (“method for multi-task laser welding,” title) together tips of different wires (“at least two hairpin tips,” para 0006; fig. 1) arranged about a motor stator (stator assembly 10, fig. 2), the method comprising:
scanning (step 130, fig. 9) the tips with a three-dimensional scanner (cameras 46 and 50, fig. 2; para 0030) prior to welding (step 150, fig. 9);
measuring (part of step 130, fig. 9) alignment of the tips in X, Y, and Z coordinate plane directions (para 0029 and figs. 7-8);
identifying (step 140, fig. 9) a weld schedule (figs. 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) for the tips aligned within the predetermined alignment range (hairpins 24L and 24R, figs. 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A; construed as hairpins that are within acceptable tolerances because they are welded together);
activating (step 150, fig. 9) a laser welder (laser welding scan head 42, fig. 2) to weld together only the tips in accordance with the weld schedule (“laser welded together according to the selected weld schedule to form a weld,” para 0036);
after welding, scanning the welds (block 160, fig. 9);
measuring characteristics of each of a plurality of welds (“welding to join the hairpins 24 within each pair 26 of a stator assembly 10,” para 0026; each pair of hairpins in fig. 1 is construed as a weld) including at least one of height, volume, radius (not explicitly disclosed), and weld size (“size,” para 0037);
comparing (block 170, fig. 9) the measured characteristics of each of the welds to predetermined weld tolerances (“compared to the predetermined weld quality criteria,” para 0036) to determine whether each of the welds falls within the predetermined weld tolerances or is in need of repair (“whether a given weld is acceptable or not,” para 0036);
for each of the welds in need of repair (“0,” fig. 9), identifying a repair weld schedule (block 190, fig. 9; “reweld schedule,” para 0037) based on the measured characteristics of each of the welds (“based on the evaluation data,” para 0037; para 0036); and
activating the laser welder (block 200, fig. 9) to perform a repair weld in accordance with the repair weld schedule (“according to the chosen reweld schedule to form a reweld,” para 0037).
Wang does not explicitly disclose comparing the measured alignment of the tips to a predetermined alignment range; welding together only the tips aligned with the predetermined alignment range; rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips; after welding, scanning the welds with the three-dimensional scanner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Ryan teaches comparing the measured alignment of the tips to a predetermined alignment range (“the mismatch parameter can be ‘zero’ when no mismatch is detected,” para 0056; construed as comparing these mismatches to a range of zero; similar to Wang, Ryan teaches identifying “at least one geometric Δx, Δy, and/or Δz value, para 0056; figs. 4D-4G); welding together only the tips aligned with the predetermined alignment range (fig. 6C; the tips are only welded together when there is a mismatch of “zero,” as opposed to figs. 6A-6B; paras 0056 and 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Ryan, by using a two-step welding process 310 and 320, as taught by Ryan in fig. 10, instead of a one-step welding process 150, as taught by Wang in fig. 9, where the tips are welded across the joint line if there is no mismatch but if there is a mismatch, then the tips are compensated for by providing weld segments towards but not overlapping a joint line prior to the weld step 320, for the advantage of ensuring a uniform weld shape that provides a continuous electrical path through the stator winding for each hairpin pair (Ryan, para 0067).
Wang/Ryan do not explicitly disclose rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips; after welding, scanning the welds with the three-dimensional scanner (although Wang teaches assessing welding quality in step 170, Wang does not explicitly disclose using the cameras to complete this step).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Mohri teaches after welding (step 101, fig. 3), scanning (step 102, fig. 3; para 0093) the welds with the three-dimensional scanner (shape detection unit 500, fig. 2; “camera,” para 0055; “three-dimensional shape measurement sensor,” para 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Mohri, by using the cameras in step 170, as Wang, to image welds after welding, as taught by Mohri, in order to assess the quality of a welded portion from an image produced by the cameras so that if there is a defective portion in the weld, then the defective portion can be repair-welded (Mohri, para 0062).
Wang/Ryan/Mohri do not explicitly disclose rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Peschina teaches rotating (para 0063) the motor stator on a rotary stage (support structure 4, fig. 1) during the scanning and welding of the tips (“the free ends 2 a are welded successively in pairs; for this, the support structure 4 may be rotated about a vertical rotational axis,” para 0079; during step 104, the stator is rotated to weld successive pairs of bar conductors, para 0079; construed such that the support structure 4 is rotated successively to inspect and weld the pairs of hairpin tips, as taught by Wang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Peschina, by using a support structure 4, as taught by Peschina, to rotate the stator 10, as taught by Wang, such that the support structure was controlled by the processor 21, as taught by Mohri, in order to use a support structure that facilitates rotation of the bars in the stator about a rotational axis, for the advantage of using a support structure that arranges the welding device directly below the laser, so that the free ends can be easily welded (Peschina, para 0027).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising performing the scanning with a three-dimensional metrology laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Mohri teaches further comprising performing the scanning with a three-dimensional metrology laser (“laser light source,” para 0055; used for imaging the welded portion, construed as a metrology laser).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Mohri, by using a laser light source, as taught by Mohri, during the imaging of the welds using the cameras, as taught by Mohri, in order to assess the quality of a welded portion from an image using illumination from the laser light source, so that if there is a defective portion in the weld, then the defective portion can be repair-welded (Mohri, para 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches further comprising measuring a distance between the laser welder and each of the tips (heights in x, y, and z directions of the structures, para 0027, are used to set the “focal point,” para 0035; the focal distance is construed as the claimed “distance”); wherein the weld schedule (figs. 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) for each of the tips includes a focal length setting for the laser welder set for the distance between the laser welder and each of the tips (“the focal point and the next area of interest 14 (e.g., the next set of structures 24) may coincide,” para 0035; construed such that the focal distance is optimized).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches wherein the weld schedule (figs. 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) includes a height of the three-dimensional scanner relative to the tips, and a laser welder control module (robotic system 58, fig. 2) is configured to set the laser welder to the height (“the robotic system 58 may position the scan head/ cameras 42, 46, 50 and/or the workpiece(s) 10, 10 n so that the focal point and the next area of interest 14 (e.g., the next set of structures 24) may coincide,” para 0035; the height of the scan head when the focal point is set is construed as the claimed “optimal height”).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a method for welding (“method for multi-task laser welding,” title) together tips of different wires (“at least two hairpin tips,” para 0006; fig. 1) arranged about a motor stator (stator assembly 10, fig. 2), the method comprising:
scanning (step 130, fig. 9) the tips with a three-dimensional scanner (cameras 46 and 50, fig. 2; para 0030) prior to welding (step 150, fig. 9);
measuring (part of step 130, fig. 9) alignment of the tips in X, Y, and Z coordinate plane directions (para 0029 and figs. 7-8);
identifying (step 140, fig. 9) a weld schedule (figs. 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) for each of the tips that fall within the predetermined alignment range (hairpins 24L and 24R, figs. 3A, 4A, 5A, and 6A; construed as hairpins that are within acceptable tolerances because they are welded together);
activating (step 150, fig. 9) a laser welder (laser welding scan head 42, fig. 2) to weld together only the tips in accordance with the weld schedule (“laser welded together according to the selected weld schedule to form a weld,” para 0036);
after welding, scanning a plurality of welds (block 160, fig. 9; “welding to join the hairpins 24 within each pair 26 of a stator assembly 10,” para 0026; each pair of hairpins in fig. 1 is construed as a weld);
measuring characteristics of each of the welds including at least one of height, volume, radius, (not explicitly disclosed) and weld size (“size,” para 0037);
comparing (block 170, fig. 9) the measured characteristics of each of the welds to predetermined weld tolerances (“compared to the predetermined weld quality criteria,” para 0036) to determine whether each of the welds falls within the predetermined weld tolerances or is in need of repair (“whether a given weld is acceptable or not,” para 0036);
for each of the welds in need of repair (“0,” fig. 9), identifying a repair weld schedule (block 190, fig. 9; “reweld schedule,” para 0037) based on the measured characteristics of each of the welds (“based on the evaluation data,” para 0037; para 0036); and
activating the laser welder (block 200, fig. 9) to perform a repair weld in accordance with the repair weld schedule (“according to the chosen reweld schedule to form a reweld,” para 0037);
scanning a plurality of repair welds (block 210, fig. 9; multiple rewelds can be executed, loop shown in fig. 9 and described in para 0037);
measuring characteristics of each of the repair welds (“the reweld is checked to determine whether the reweld passes predetermined reweld quality criteria,” para 0037);
comparing (block 220, fig. 9) the characteristics of each of the repair welds to predetermined repair weld tolerances (“it is determined whether the reweld passes the reweld quality criteria,” para 0037); and
generating an alert (“sounding an alarm,” para 00237) identifying any of the repair welds that are outside of the predetermined repair weld tolerances (bottom “0,” fig. 9; “identifying the defective workpiece,” para 0037).
Wang does not explicitly disclose comparing the measured alignment of each of the tips to a predetermined alignment range; welding together only the tips aligned with the predetermined alignment range; rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips; after welding, scanning the welds with the three-dimensional scanner; scanning the repair welds with the three-dimensional scanner.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Ryan teaches comparing the measured alignment of the tips to a predetermined alignment range (“the mismatch parameter can be ‘zero’ when no mismatch is detected,” para 0056; construed as comparing these mismatches to a range of zero; similar to Wang, Ryan teaches identifying “at least one geometric Δx, Δy, and/or Δz value, para 0056; figs. 4D-4G); welding together only the tips aligned with the predetermined alignment range (fig. 6C; the tips are only welded together when there is a mismatch of “zero,” as opposed to figs. 6A-6B; paras 0056 and 0058).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Ryan, by using a two-step welding process 310 and 320, as taught by Ryan in fig. 10, instead of a one-step welding process 150, as taught by Wang in fig. 9, where the tips are welded across the joint line if there is no mismatch but if there is a mismatch, then the tips are compensated for by providing weld segments towards but not overlapping a joint line prior to the weld step 320, for the advantage of ensuring a uniform weld shape that provides a continuous electrical path through the stator winding for each hairpin pair (Ryan, para 0067).
Wang/ Ryan do not explicitly disclose rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips; after welding, scanning the welds with the three-dimensional scanner; scanning the repair welds with the three-dimensional scanner (although Wang teaches assessing welding quality in steps 170 and 210, Wang does not explicitly disclose using the cameras to complete these steps).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Mohri teaches after welding (step 101, fig. 3), scanning (step 102, fig. 3; para 0093) the welds with the three-dimensional scanner (shape detection unit 500, fig. 2; “camera,” para 0055; “three-dimensional shape measurement sensor,” para 0055); scanning the repair welds with the three-dimensional scanner (in fig. 4, the repair welding program is repeated, specifically the inspection step 102, para 0122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Mohri, by using the cameras in step 170, as Wang, to image the welds and rewelds, as taught by Mohri, in order to assess the quality of a welded portion from an image produced by the cameras so that if there is a defective portion in the weld, then the defective portion of the weld or the repair-weld can be addressed (Mohri, para 0062).
Wang/Ryan/Mohri do not explicitly disclose rotating the motor stator on a rotary stage during the scanning and welding of the tips.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Peschina teaches rotating (para 0063) the motor stator on a rotary stage (support structure 4, fig. 1) during the scanning and welding of the tips (“the free ends 2 a are welded successively in pairs; for this, the support structure 4 may be rotated about a vertical rotational axis,” para 0079; during step 104, the stator is rotated to weld successive pairs of bar conductors, para 0079; construed such that the support structure 4 is rotated successively to inspect and weld the pairs of hairpin tips, as taught by Wang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri, in view of the teachings of Peschina, by using a support structure 4, as taught by Peschina, to rotate the stator 10, as taught by Wang, such that the support structure was controlled by the processor 21, as taught by Mohri, in order to use a support structure that facilitates rotation of the bars in the stator about a rotational axis, for the advantage of using a support structure that arranges the welding device directly below the laser, so that the free ends can be easily welded (Peschina, para 0027).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches further comprising measuring a distance between the laser welder and each of the tips of the motor stator (heights in x, y, and z directions of the structures, para 0027, are used to set the “focal point,” para 0035; the focal distance is construed as the claimed “distance”); wherein the weld schedule (figs. 3C, 4C, 5C, and 6C) for each of the tips includes a focal length setting for the laser welder set for the distance between the laser welder and each of the tips (“the focal point and the next area of interest 14 (e.g., the next set of structures 24) may coincide,” para 0035; construed such that the focal distance is optimized).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising performing the scanning with a three-dimensional metrology laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Mohri teaches further comprising performing the scanning with a three-dimensional metrology laser (“laser light source,” para 0055; used for imaging the welded portion, construed as a metrology laser).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Mohri, by using a laser light source, as taught by Mohri, during the imaging of the welds using the cameras, as taught by Mohri, in order to assess the quality of a welded portion from an image using illumination from the laser light source, so that if there is a defective portion in the weld, then the defective portion can be repair-welded (Mohri, para 0062).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20210031297-A1) in view of, Ryan et al. (US-20220161361-A1), Mohri et al. (US-20220118559-A1), and Peschina (US-20220014078-A1) as applied to claims 9 and 16 above and further in view of Gonzalez et al. (US- 20170028506-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating an alert identifying any of the tips not welded due to falling outside of the predetermined alignment range, and pausing operations to permit manual alignment.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Gonzalez teaches further comprising generating an alert (“alarm or notification,” para 0048) identifying any of the tips not welded due to falling outside of the predetermined alignment range (“not within acceptable tolerances,” para 0048), and pausing operations to permit manual alignment (“the current operation has been ceased and requires operator attention,” para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Gonzalez, by determining whether the offsets between the hairpins, as taught by Wang, were greater than a mismatch of zero, as taught by Ryan, and if the distance was not within the acceptable threshold, then operation could be ceased and an alarm or notification could be provided to an operator (Gonzalez, para 0048).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising generating an alert identifying any tips not welded due to falling outside of the predetermined alignment range, and pausing operations to permit manual alignment.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Gonzalez teaches further comprising generating an alert (“alarm or notification,” para 0048) identifying any tips not welded due to falling outside of the predetermined alignment range (“not within acceptable tolerances,” para 0048), and pausing operations to permit manual alignment (“the current operation has been ceased and requires operator attention,” para 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Wang, in view of the teachings of Gonzalez, by determining whether the offsets between the hairpins, as taught by Wang, were greater than a mismatch of zero, as taught by Ryan, and if the distance was not within the acceptable threshold, then operation could be ceased and an alarm or notification could be provided to an operator (Gonzalez, para 0048).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US-20210031297-A1) in view of Ryan et al. (US-20220161361-A1), Mohri et al. (US-20220118559-A1), and Peschina (US-20220014078-A1) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Hoffman et al. (US-20220395923-A1).
Wang teaches further comprising: prior to welding (block 130 takes place prior to block 150, fig. 9; para 0036), measuring height ranges of the tips (heights in x, y, and z directions, para 0027); and during welding, setting heights of the welds based on the average heights and height ranges of the tips of the motor stator (heights of weld schedules are optimized based on the heights in the x, y, and z directions, fig. 3A-6C; paras 0031-0032; the welds in figs. 3A-6C are set to intersect the halfway points of the top of the hairpins, which are construed as the “claimed average heights”).
Wang does not explicitly disclose prior to welding, measuring average heights.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Hoffman teaches prior to welding (para 0235), measuring average heights (lines M3 and M4, fig. 2a; these lines are located at the midpoints of each conductor in the conductor end group 20, fig. 1; construed as being average heights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Mohri/Wang, in view of the teachings of Hoffman, by calculating the heights along lines M1 to M4, as taught by Hoffman, of the hairpins, as taught by Wang, in order to use the height offset between conductors as an input parameter for determining how much weld energy should be applied during the weld (Hoffman, para 0235).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Mohri, Wang, and Peschina combined with Ryan.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mueller et al. (US-20240009774-A1) teach a method of hairpin wielding.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights