DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0280574).
Regarding Claim 1.
Shirai discloses:
A method for stripping a rod-shaped conductor(30) using laser radiation(20), wherein the rod-shaped conductor(30) comprises an electrically conductive core(32) and a coating(34) that is at least partially transparent to the laser radiation([0053]), the method comprising:
traversing the conductor(34) for a first time with at least one laser beam(20) to at least partially reduce transparency(36) of the coating(34); and ([0053], “First step” Fig. 2)
traversing the conductor(32) for a second time with the at least one laser beam(20) to at least partially reduce adhesion of the coating(coating 34 adhesion reduced, 36 becomes 38 debris).(Fig. 3 [0054] and “second step”)
Shirai does not disclose:
That the traversing partially reduces adhesion.
However, Shirai discloses that the second step eliminates the adhesion by making it debris. As such, it would have been obvious to use the method of Shirai to reduce adhesion by making the coating debris. As such, the features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation is in a near infrared range with a wavelength between 800 nm and 1200 nm.(See [0045]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 7.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 6, wherein the beam quality M.sup.2 is between 1 and 1. 4. ([0048] and [0053])
Regarding Claim 8.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation comprises multimode laser radiation. ([0058]-[0059])
Regarding Claim 9.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the coating comprises polyamidimide, polyetheretherketone, and/or polyamidimide with polyimide film.([0048])
Regarding Claim 12.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation hatches a region of the conductor.(See Fig. 1 36)
Regarding Claim 13.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 12, wherein the laser radiation irradiates longitudinal ends of the hatched region using at least one single line transversely to a longitudinal extent of the conductor. (See Fig. 1, laser moves as shown by arrows 50)
Regarding Claim 14.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation has the following parameters during the traversing for the first time: a fluence of at least 1 J/cm.sup.2 and at most 40 J/cm.sup.2; and a continuous laser beam or a pulsed laser beam with a repetition rate of at least 1 kHz and at most 4 MHz.
However, Shirai discloses that the laser may be tuned as necessary to remove the material from the conductor at [0044]-[0051], as such, it would have been obvious tune the laser applications as recited for the obvious benefit of removing a desired material, and the features of claim 14 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15.
Shirai discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation has the following parameters during the traversing for the second time: a fluence of at least 1 J/cm.sup.2 and at most 40 J/cm.sup.2; and a positive pulse overlap.([0049])
Regarding Claim 16.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprising: traversing the conductor with the at least one laser beam for a third time to clean the conductor.
However, the recited features are a mere duplication of parts of the step two of Shirai, shown in Fig. 3. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), Here, the duplication would provide additional debris removal as shown in fig. 3. As such, there is no new or unexpected results, and as such, the features would have been obvious.
Regarding Claim 17.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation has the following parameters in order to obtain at least partial spalling of the coating: a frequency of at least 5 kHz and at most 15 kHz; and a pulse overlap of less than 20%; and a line overlap of less than 20%; and a pulse energy of between 30 mJ and 50 mJ.
However, Shirai discloses that the laser may be tuned as necessary to remove the material from the conductor at [0044]-[0051], as such, it would have been obvious tune the laser applications as recited for the obvious benefit of removing a desired material, and the features of claim 17 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 18.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 17.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 17, wherein the pulse overlap is a negative pulse overlap of between −10% and −20%.
However, Shirai discloses that the laser may be tuned as necessary to remove the material from the conductor at [0044]-[0051], as such, it would have been obvious tune the laser applications as recited for the obvious benefit of removing a desired material, and the features of claim 17 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 19.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation has the following parameters in order to obtain at least partial burning off of the coating: a frequency of more than 20 kHz; and a pulse overlap of more than 40%; and a line overlap of more than 40%; and a pulse energy of more than 40 mJ.
However, Shirai discloses that the laser may be tuned as necessary to remove the material from the conductor at [0044]-[0051], as such, it would have been obvious tune the laser applications as recited for the obvious benefit of removing a desired material, and the features of claim 17 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 20.
Shirai discloses
A method for producing a hairpin having two rod-shaped conductors, the method comprising: at least partially stripping a coating of a first rod-shaped conductor using a method according to claim 1 and/or at least partially stripping a coating of a second rod-shaped conductor using the method according to claim 1; and welding a free end of the first rod-shaped conductor to a free end of the second rod-shaped conductor.(See [0003])
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0280574) in view of Atop (WO 2018/092022).
Regarding Claim 2.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the conductor is in a form of a hairpin conductor.
In related art, Atop discloses:
the conductor is in a form of a hairpin conductor.(See Fig. 2)
Atop discloses that the device may be a hairpin connector for use in a coil. discloses at [0049] that the conductor may be taken from a coil, and be a conductor wire. The hairpin connector of Atop would make the device smaller, and easier to manufacture. As such, the features of claim 2 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one laser beam comprises a plurality of non-congruent laser beams, and wherein a radial outer side of the conductor is irradiated by the plurality of non-congruent laser beams during the traversing for the first time and/or the traversing for the second time.
In related art, Atop discloses:
the at least one laser beam comprises a plurality of non-congruent laser beams, and wherein a radial outer side of the conductor is irradiated by the plurality of non-congruent laser beams during the traversing for the first time and/or the traversing for the second time.(See Figs. 3 and 4, and 13a 13b)
Atop discloses that the beams 13a and 13b may be pulsed recited features provide the benefit of providing scanning of the conductor to obtain a desired conductor quality based on the scanning. As such, the features of claim 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0280574) in view of Hatakeyama (JP2005252035a).
Regarding Claim 4.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein an entirety of the radial outer side of the conductor is stripped.
In related art Hatakeyama discloses:
an entirety of the radial outer side of the conductor is stripped. (See abstract and fig. 1 and 1c is stripped). Hakakeyama discloses that the radial portions of the conductor is stripped for the obvious benefit of providing radial stripping of the conductor which allows contacts to be made radially around the conductor. Thus, the features of claim 4 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0280574) in view of Kakui (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0148002).
Regarding Claim 6.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser radiation has a beam quality M.sup.2 that is less than or equal to 4.
In related art, Kakui discloses
the laser radiation has a beam quality M.sup.2 that is less than or equal to 4.(([0010][0066]))Kakui discloses that the beam may be adjusted based on a desired processing of a substrate. A such, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Shirai as recited to obtain a desired output product. Thus, the features of claim 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0280574) in view of Manyam (U.S. Patent Application publication No. 2005/0265678)
Regarding Claim 10.
Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a beam cross section of the laser radiation has a Gaussian intensity profile and/or a top hat-shaped intensity profile.
IN related art Manyam discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a beam cross section of the laser radiation has a Gaussian intensity profile and/or a top hat-shaped intensity profile. ([0027])
Manyam discloses that the recited features provide a good laser quality to a work piece, which results in a desired light being delivered to a work piece for a desired product. As such, it would have been obvious to provide the laser light as recited.
Regarding Claim 11. Shirai discloses all of the features of claim 10.
Shirai does not disclose:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the beam cross section of the laser radiation has the top hat-shaped intensity profile along a long extent and the Gaussian intensity profile along a short extent.
IN related art Manyam discloses:
The method according to claim 10, wherein the beam cross section of the laser radiation has the top hat-shaped intensity profile along a long extent and the Gaussian intensity profile along a short extent. ([0027]) Manyam discloses that the recited features provide a good laser quality to a work piece, which results in a desired light being delivered to a work piece for a desired product. Furthermore, the gaussian profile could be formed on a short or long extent, and the top hat shaped could be formed along the short or long extent, as such, it would have been obvious to try the recited arrangement for the obvious benefit of providing a desired laser treatment to a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(E)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898