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
Applicant’s Amendment filed on has been entered.
All objections have been withdrawn.
All of the rejections to claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
Claim 5 has been amended.
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.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Yashima et al. (US Publication 2022/0297218) hereafter referred to as Yashima in view of Kroschel et al. (US Publication 2022/0032395) hereafter referred to as Kroschel.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Yashima teaches a welding control method ([0008]) that drives a welding head by a controller and performs a welding operation. However Yashima does not teach a swing path defined with a deceleration zone and an acceleration zone relative to a processing direction of the laser welding head, reducing a relative swing speed of the laser welding head in the acceleration zone during performing the welding operation, wherein the relative swing speed is a relative speed between a feeding speed and a rotation vector of the laser welding head, wherein the swing path is a circular trajectory, wherein the acceleration zone is an area where the processing direction and the swing direction of the swing path are in a same feeding direction, or wherein the relative swing speed of the laser welding head is reduced in a middle section of the acceleration zone.
Kroschel teaches laser welding ([0007]) control wherein the laser head is moved in a circular path frequency ([0081]), which is normally measured is Hz or equivalents, or circular trajectory which means there is a rotating manner in which the laser welding head moves in a circle forming a swing path. Objects moving in circles have certain mathematical properties and their location can be measured by the use of sine and cosine functions. Additionally, the velocity, always tangent to the circle, and acceleration, always normal pointing towards the center, are also known and are mathematically the derivative and second derivative of the location data respectively. The derivative of cosine of theta, or location, is negative sine of theta or velocity and the derivative of that is the negative cosine of theta. Where theta is the measure of the angle from the X-axis, and can be calculated using the circular path frequency. There is an area in the rotation where the velocity in the direction of the X-axis is positive, or an acceleration zone, and an area where the velocity in the direction of the X-axis not positive, or a deceleration zone. As it is shown the velocity in the direction of the X-axis does reduce in the middle section of the acceleration section, in fact immediately after the midpoint of the acceleration section where the maximum value of the velocity in the X-axis takes place. If the X-axis is defined to be the processing direction, then the velocity in the direction of the X-axis is equivalent to the relative swing speed.
Because the method of welding is not specified by Yashima, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the welding device of Yashima to include the circular path frequency taught by Kroschel to have a specified method of welding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed one 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that a circular path frequency does not teach a circular trajectory, in the specification the phrase “circular trajectory” is not a special definition and is therefore defined as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term to mean. According to Mariam Webster a trajectory is “the curve that a body (such as a planet or comet in its orbit or a rocket) describes in space” so a circular trajectory in the claim is defined as “the circular curve that a body (such as a laser welding head) describes in space.” As a circular path frequency is how often a body (such as the laser welding head) completes the circular path that it moves along, therefore Kroschel teaching a circular path frequency ([0081]) reads on the limitation of a circular trajectory in claim 1.
Regarding the argument that Kroschel does not teach the claimed properties of the swing path, Kroschel teaches a circular path that has the claimed properties of the swing path, as a circular path has inherent geometric and mathematical properties because it is a circular path. Because those properties are inherent, anything that teaches a circular swing path teaches a swing path with those properties.
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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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 F 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights