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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
Common vision device in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: specification par. 46 states “a vision device, such as a photographing device.”
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “the positioning device is configured to be programmed based on a size and a configuration of a sample.” The specification does not disclose or reasonably convey how one of ordinary skill in the art can adapt a photographing device to be programmed based on the size and configuration of a sample. The mere recitation that the positioning device can be programmed in the specification paragraph 36 does not constitute as a reasonable description that applicants had possession.
Claim 17 rejected due to dependency.
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 9, 13, 15, and 17-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “the positioning device is configured to be programmed based on a size and a configuration of a sample.” It is unclear how a photographing device can be programmed based on a size and configuration of a sample. And it is unclear what the photographing device is being programmed to perform. For examination, the limitation will be interpreted as --the positioning device is programmed to observe a size and a configuration of a sample--.
Claims 13, 15, 17, and 18 recites “the post-welding surface quality monitoring device” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is dependent on a cancelled claim. For examination, it will be assumed to be dependent on claim 5 because it recites “the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nakamura (JPH08315790) in view of Diez (US 2010/0078412 A1) and Neiheisel (US 5045668 A).
Claim 1. Nakamura discloses a laser welding system (laser welding, par. 9) for sealing welding a cell top cover (welding cover onto a rectangular case, par. 8, Fig. 3), the laser welding system comprising:
a laser emitting device (7, Fig. 2) for generating a scanning welding laser beam (laser beam, Fig. 3) to be irradiated to a portion of the cell top cover to be welded (beam irradiates the top portion of the cover 2, Fig. 3); and
a controller for controlling the laser emitting device to perform continuous scanning sealing welding on the cell top cover (controller 8 controls the laser oscillator, par. 30);
wherein the laser welding system is configured to complete the sealing welding of the cell top cover at only one work station (complete welding of the cover occurs at the laser welding machine, par. 30; where broadest reasonable interpretation of “complete the sealing welding” includes completing the weld at a single work station).
Nakamura does not disclose a positioning device for achieving pre-positioning before welding; and
a post-welding surface quality monitoring device for monitoring quality of a welded surface,
wherein the positioning device and the post-welding surface quality monitoring device are configured as a common vision device,
wherein the positioning device is configured to obtain characteristic data of the cell top cover and transmit the characteristic data of the cell top cover to the controller,
wherein the controller is configured to, if the characteristic data does not satisfy a predetermined condition, control the laser emitting device and/or a worktable to adjust the cell top cover based on the characteristic data, and to continue performing subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding only after the cell top cover has been adjusted so that the predetermined condition is satisfied, and
Diez discloses a laser welding system (laser-arc hybrid welding, abstract) for
a laser emitting device (105, Fig. 1) for generating a scanning welding laser beam (laser beam, Fig. 1) to be irradiated to a portion of the
a
a positioning device for achieving pre-positioning before welding (camera 300 helps determine the position of the laser welder and arc welder, par. 15);
wherein the positioning device configured as a common vision device (camera 300, Fig. 1),
wherein the positioning device is configured to obtain characteristic data of the cell top cover and transmit the characteristic data of the cell top cover to the controller (camera 300 monitors the conditions of the joint of the workpieces being welded and transmits the information to the laser welder, par. 16, Fig. 1),
wherein the controller is configured to, if the characteristic data does not satisfy a predetermined condition (step 210, if the gap is greater than a threshold, the laser or arc welder may be used, Fig. 4), control the laser emitting device (step 220-245, Fig. 4) and/or a worktable to adjust the cell top cover based on the characteristic data, and
to continue performing subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding only after the cell top cover has been adjusted so that the predetermined condition is satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Diez and have the welding system be a hybrid welding system. Doing so would have the benefit of welding workpieces with differing gaps (par. 14, Diez).
Nakamura in view of Diez does not disclose adjusting the cell top cover and to continue performing subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding only after the cell top cover has been adjusted so that the predetermined condition is satisfied.
Neiheisel discloses a laser welding machine with an imaging system observing the workpieces’ gap location (abstract) and the worktable moves the workpieces such that the gap center is relative to the laser beam (col 5, lines 10-20 and col 11, lines 55-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura in view of Diez to incorporate the teachings of Neiheisel and move the workpieces such that the gap is aligned with the laser beam. Doing so would have the benefit of aligning the center of the gap with the laser beam for high speed welding (col 3, lines 62-65, Neiheisel).
Claim 3. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel discloses the laser welding system according to claim 1, wherein,
the laser welding system is configured to weld at a scanning welding speed of up to 10,000 mm/s (scanning speed is 10 mm/s, par. 26).
Claim 11. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel discloses the laser welding system according to claim 1, wherein, the characteristic data comprises
at least one of a geometric characteristic of the cell top cover,
a position characteristic of the cell top cover, or
a gap characteristic of the portion of the cell top cover to be welded (gap of the workpieces is observed, abstract, Neiheisel); and/or
Claim 12. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel discloses the laser welding system according to claim 11, wherein, the laser welding system is configured to adjust characteristics of the laser beam emitted by the laser emitting device based on
a gap width characteristic and/or
a gap position characteristic of the portion of the cell top cover to be welded (gap of the workpieces is observed, abstract, Neiheisel); and/or
the laser emitting device is configured as a scanning galvanometer.
Claim 20. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel discloses a method for sealing welding a cell top cover (laser welding a cover of a rectangular case, par. 8-9), wherein the method is performed by using the laser welding system according to claim 1 to achieve continuous scanning sealing welding of the cell top cover (continuous weld around the cover, Fig. 8).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webster (US 2019/0299327 A1)
Claim 5. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 1, further comprising:
an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding.
Webster discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an imaging system 21 observes the depth of the weld in real time (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel to incorporate the teachings of Webster and monitor the weld depth. Doing so would have the benefit of identifying instability in the weld (par. 55-56, Webster).
Claim 7. Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 3, further comprising:
an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding.
Webster discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an imaging system 21 observes the depth of the weld in real time (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura in view of Diez and Neiheisel to incorporate the teachings of Webster and monitor the weld depth. Doing so would have the benefit of identifying instability in the weld (par. 55-56, Webster).
Claim 9. Nakamura in view of Diez, Neiheisel, and Webster discloses the laser welding system according to claim 5, wherein,
the positioning device is configured to be programmed based on a size and a configuration of a sample (the camera is capable of observing the size and orientation of the workpieces).
Claim 13. Nakamura in view of Diez, Neiheisel, and Webster discloses the laser welding system according to claim 5, wherein,
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller (imaging system is connected to a controller, par. 121, Fig. 7, Webster); and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller.
Claim 15. Nakamura in view of Diez, Neiheisel, and Webster discloses the laser welding system according to claim 7, wherein,
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller (imaging system is connected to a controller, par. 121, Fig. 7, Webster); and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller.
Claim 17. Nakamura in view of Diez, Neiheisel, and Webster discloses the laser welding system according to claim 9, wherein,
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller (imaging system is connected to a controller, par. 121, Fig. 7, Webster); and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller.
Claim 18. Nakamura in view of Diez, Neiheisel, and Webster discloses the laser welding system according to claim 10, wherein,
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or
the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller (imaging system is connected to a controller, par. 121, Fig. 7, Webster); and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or
the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the controller.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights