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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kageyama (US 20210154767).
Claim 1 recites “a laser protection system.” Kageyama teaches such a laser protection system, as will be shown.
Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) a laser protection system comprising:
a laser source 180 configured to sequentially emit a plurality of laser beams to a plurality of work targets W that are discretely supplied (para. 0049, 0051);
a plurality of protective lenses (131, 132, 133) disposed between the laser source and the plurality of work targets; and
a drive mechanism on which the plurality of protective lenses are movably mounted (para. 0035), wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the plurality of protective lenses to allow each laser beam of the plurality of laser beams to pass through one of the plurality of protective lenses at a different time (para. 0050-0053).
Regarding Claim 2, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 1, wherein the drive mechanism comprises: a protective lens conveyor 130, on which the plurality of protective lenses are mounted, configured to move the plurality of protective lenses in a direction parallel to a moving direction of the plurality of work targets (para. 0076, conveyor may move linearly or rotatably toward the workpiece); and a conveyor motor configured to provide a moving force to the protective lens conveyor (para. 0076, not shown).
Regarding Claim 3, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 1, further comprising a cleaning member 154 configured to clean the plurality of protective lenses (para. 0039).
Regarding Claim 4, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of protective lenses comprises a first protective lens 131 and a second protective lens 132, wherein the first protective lens is placed at an operating position aligned with the laser source and a first work target of the plurality of work targets to allow a first laser beam of the plurality of laser beams to pass through the first protective lens (para. 0037, 110 position), wherein the second protective lens is placed at a non-operating position (para. 0039-0040, 150 position), and wherein the cleaning member is disposed at the non-operating position to clean the second protective lens (para. 0096).
Regarding Claim 5, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 3, wherein the cleaning member comprises: a brush element 154a disposed to clean one of the plurality of protective lenses; and a rotation motor configured to rotate the brush element (para. 0040).
Regarding Claim 6, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 5, wherein the cleaning member further comprises a linear mover configured to move the cleaning member so that the brush element contacts a first protective lens of the plurality of protective lenses (para. 0040, Fig. 4) and the brush element is spaced apart from a second protective lens of the plurality of protective lenses (para. 0050).
Regarding Claim 7, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 1, wherein: the plurality of work targets comprises a first work target W and a second work target W that are sequentially supplied (para. 0051), and the drive mechanism is configured to move a first protective lens of the plurality of protective lenses to be positioned between the first work target and the laser source when a first laser beam of the plurality of laser beams is radiated to the first work target (para. 0051-0053), and the drive mechanism is configured to move a second protective lens of the plurality of protective lenses to be positioned between the second work target and the laser source when a second laser beam of the plurality of laser beams is radiated to the second work target (para. 0051-0053).
Regarding Claim 8, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 1, further comprising a laser source conveyor 200 configured to move the laser source in a direction parallel to a moving direction of the plurality of work targets (para. 0027-0028).
Regarding Claim 9, Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) the laser protection system according to claim 1, further comprising a controller 300 configured to control the laser source.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Mabee (US 20150273641).
Claim 10 recites “a method of operating a laser protection system.” Kageyama teaches such a method, as will be shown.
Kageyama teaches (Figs. 1-10) a method of operating a laser protection system, the method comprising:
supplying a plurality of work targets disposed at an interval (para. 0049, 0051);
setting a laser source 180 configured to perform a first laser welding operation on a first work target of the plurality of work targets;
placing a first protective lens 131 at an operating position positioned between the first work target and the laser source (para. 0037, 110 position);
performing the first laser welding operation on the first work target by using the laser source (para. 0037);
aligning a second work target of the plurality of work targets with the laser source after completing the laser welding operation on the first work target (para. 0051);
moving the first protective lens from the operating position to a non-operating position and moving a second protective lens to the operating position (para. 0047); and
performing a second laser welding operation on the second work target by using the laser source (para. 0051-0052).
However, Kageyama does not teach the plurality of work targets are supplied on a conveyor belt that is configured to move the plurality of work targets.
Mabee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a method of operating a laser protection system comprising supplying a plurality of work targets 18 disposed at an interval on a conveyor belt 32, 34 that is configured to move the plurality of work targets (para. 0034).
Mabee further teaches supplying workpieces on such a conveyor belt system minimizes lost laser operation time (para. 0007).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Mabee to the method of Kageyama to have the plurality of work targets are supplied on a conveyor belt that is configured to move the plurality of work targets, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods of operating a laser protection system. Doing so would minimize lost laser operation time, as recognized by Mabee.
Regarding Claim 11, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, further comprising cleaning the first protective lens while the first protective lens is positioned at the non-operating position (para. 0051-0052).
Regarding Claim 12, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, further comprising: aligning a third work target of the plurality of work targets with the laser source after completing the second laser welding operation on the second work target; moving the second protective lens to the non-operating position or a second non-operating position, and moving the first protective lens from the non-operating position to the operating position; and performing a third laser welding operation on the third work target by using the laser source (para. 0051-0053).
Regarding Claim 13, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, further comprising: moving the second protective lens to the non-operating position; and cleaning the second protective lens while the second protective lens is positioned at the non-operating position (para. 0051-0053).
Regarding Claim 14, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Mabee Figs. 1-4) the method according to claim 10, wherein the conveyor belt is operated by a conveyor belt motor 42.
Regarding Claim 15, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, further comprising: switching positions of the first protective lens and the second protective lens between the operating position and the non-operating position.
However, Kageyama does not teach switching, by using a protective lens conveyor, wherein the protective lens conveyor is operated by a conveyor motor.
Mabee teaches (Figs. 1-4) a method of operating a laser protection system comprising supplying a plurality of work targets 18 disposed at an interval on a conveyor belt 32, 34 that is configured to move the plurality of work targets (para. 0034).
Mabee further teaches supplying workpieces on such a conveyor belt system minimizes lost laser operation time (para. 0007).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Mabee to the method of Kageyama to have the protective lenses are switched on a conveyor belt, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods of operating a laser protection system. Doing so would minimize lost laser operation time, as recognized by Mabee.
Regarding Claim 16, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 13, wherein the cleaning the second protective lens comprises rotating a brush element of a cleaning member, and wherein the cleaning member comprises the brush element and a rotation motor configured to rotate the brush element (para. 0040, 0050).
Regarding Claim 17, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 16, further comprising moving, by a linear mover, the cleaning member so that the cleaning member contacts the second protective lens (para. 0040, 0050).
Regarding Claim 18, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, further comprising moving the laser source in a direction parallel to a moving direction of the conveyor belt (via 200, para. 0027-0028).
Regarding Claim 19, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10, wherein the operating position is disposed between the non-operating position and a second non-operating position (see Fig. 9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Mabee, and further in view of Compton et al. (hereafter Compton – US 20190319250).
Regarding Claim 20, Kageyama, as modified with Mabee in Claim 11 above, teaches (Kageyama Figs. 1-10) the method according to claim 10.
However, modified Kageyama does not teach each of the plurality of work targets comprises a battery module comprising a plurality of cells, and wherein the first laser welding operation and the second laser welding operation are to electrically connect cells in the plurality of cells.
Compton teaches (Figs. 1-3) a method of operating a laser system, wherein each of the plurality of work targets comprises a battery module 12 comprising a plurality of cells 16, and wherein the first laser welding operation and the second laser welding operation are to electrically connect cells in the plurality of cells (para. 0032).
Kageyama merely teaches the laser welding workpieces but is silent as to what the workpiece encompasses. A person having ordinary skill in the art applying the invention of Kageyama would look to the prior art for suitable laser welding workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Compton to the method of Kageyama to have each of the plurality of work targets comprises a battery module comprising a plurality of cells, and wherein the first laser welding operation and the second laser welding operation are to electrically connect cells in the plurality of cells, as both references and Applicant’s invention are directed to methods for laser systems. Doing so would result in useful operation of the laser protection system, as recognized by Compton.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0685. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ANDREW THANH BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights