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 Objections
Claim 2 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2 and 12, the phrase "a controlled manner" should be changed to "the controlled manner" as antecedent basis has been established in claim 1 and 11 respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a dividing device for” in claim 11, described in paragraph [0172] as element 32 “in order for the output laser beam 6 to be subdivided into multiple partial beams 8 and thus into multiple laser spots 12. The dividing device 32 may comprise at least one bifocal insert 4a, 4b, in particular multiple bifocal inserts 4a, 4b. As an alternative or in addition thereto, the dividing device 32 may comprise other optical elements, for example the facet plate 27 shown in figs. 6a and 6b.”
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 § 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 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 1-4, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1.
Claim 1. Kayahara discloses a method for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, (Kayahara, Abstract “A welding method includes: placing a workpiece including aluminum…”; and Fig. 1 shows W1 and W2 aluminum workpieces.)
wherein the components each have a content of at least 75% by weight of aluminum, (Kayahara, [0041] “Examples of the aluminum members W1 and W2 include: pure aluminum…”)
the method comprising: subdividing an output laser beam into multiple partial beams directed onto the components, such that multiple laser spots are generated on a surface of the components, and (Kayahara, [0046] “The diffractive optical element 123 splits laser light input from the collimator lens 121 into plural beams”; and [0047] “FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B each illustrate an arrangement of plural beams on a surface of the workpiece W, the surface being a surface that is irradiated with the laser light L.”)
traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots, (Kayahara, Fig. 6A and 6B show the sectional views of the workpiece, Fig. 6B in particular shows the extending direction of the bead; and [0054] describes the welding performed when the workpiece and the laser light, which includes the main and auxiliary beams, are moved relatively to each other, where the laser moves towards a sweep direction.)
wherein laser spot centers of at least three laser spots of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation, (Kayahara, Fig. 3A shows at least three laser spots are arranged in the claimed ring formation; and [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously.”)
wherein the welding contour is at least partially traversed by pivoting a first mirror in a controlled manner by a scanner optical unit. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b” which is shown in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 14.)
Although the first embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose a mirror used to control the beam in order to traverse the welding contour, another embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 14 teaches an assembly where mirrors 224a and 224b are used to control the beam during a welding process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding apparatus of Kayahara to include a galvanoscanner that controls the angles of at least one mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to better control the laser light to enable beam sweeping without moving the optical head.
Kayahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the output laser beam is generated by a multifiber, so that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion.
wherein the output laser beam is generated by a multifiber, such that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion, and (Martinsen, [0112] “FIGS. 17-21 depict examples of fibers configured to enable maintenance and/or confinement of adjusted beam characteristics in the second length of fiber (e.g., fiber 208). These fiber designs are referred to as “ring-shaped confinement fibers” because they contain a central core surrounded by annular or ring-shaped cores…Moreover, any of the first lengths of fiber described above with respect to FIGS. 11-16 may be combined with any of the second length of fiber described FIGS. 17-21” corresponding with the claimed multifiber which is defined further in paragraph [0026] of the specification; and Fig. 5 shows an example of the intensity distribution between confinement regions, where the central core or confinement region corresponds with the core portion, and the ring-shaped confinement region corresponds with the ring portion.)
Kayahara and Martinsen are analogous art because they are related to fiber welding systems. The first embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose the optical fiber 130 as being a multifiber optical fiber, although it does disclose a diffractive optical element 123 capable of splitting the beam into multiple auxiliary beams. Martinsen discloses examples of fibers with a central core surrounded by annular or ring shaped confinement regions, separated from each other by a low index structural barrier or cladding regions. Because the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara allows for the splitting the laser light input into multiple auxiliary beams, it will similarly allow splitting the laser light input of Martinsen into plural laser spots with a beam profile having a core region and an annular region. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the fiber disclosed in Kayahara with the multifiber disclosed in Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because a multi-core optical fiber is a known alternative to a single fiber optical laser that achieves the predictable outcome of creating multiple laser beams when diffracted into a ring formation, wherein each laser beam in the ring formation has a core and annular region, in order to have more granular control of the beam characteristics for the purpose of laser welding.
Claim 2. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, when the welding contour is being traversed, the scanner optical unit deflects the output laser beam by pivoting a second mirror in a controlled manner. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b.”)
Claim 3. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the scanner optical unit deflects the output laser beam after the output laser beam has been collimated and before the output laser beam is focused. (Kayahara, [0096] “Furthermore, the optical head 320 has a galvanoscanner placed between the collimator lens 321 and the condenser lens 322” shown in the embodiment of Fig. 15.)
Although Kayahara’s embodiment in Fig. 14 does not explicitly disclose deflecting the output laser beam after the output laser beam has been collimated and before the output laser beam is focused, a similar configuration as claimed is taught in the embodiment shown in Fig. 15 of Kayahara where the mirrors that deflect the beam are situated between the collimator lens 321 and condenser lens 322. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding apparatus of Kayahara with the arrangement shown in Fig. 15. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because “similarly to the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of the two mirrors 324a and 324b, the position irradiated with laser light L is moved to enable sweeping with the laser light L, without moving the optical head 320” and the alternative arrangement would have led to similar and predictable results (see Kayahara, [0096]).
Claim 4. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the output laser beam is subdivided into the multiple partial beams before the output laser beam is deflected by the scanner optical unit. (Kayahara, Fig. 14 shows diffractive element 223 placed before the galvanoscanner device mirrors 224a and 224b and motors 225a and 225b.)
Although Kayahara’s embodiment in Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose the output laser beam being subdivided into multiple partial beams before the output laser beam is deflected by the scanner optical unit, a similar configuration as claimed is taught in the embodiment shown in Fig. 14 of Kayahara where the diffractive element 223 is situated before the galvanoscanner device mirrors responsible for deflecting the output beam. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding apparatus of Kayahara with the arrangement shown in Fig. 14. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the diffractive optical element 223 along with the collimator lens 221 and condenser lens 222 serve to shape the beam into a main beam and a plurality of auxiliary beams to allow energy to be focused in a sweep direction before being deflected to the workpiece so that generation of welding defects in welding of the workpiece W10 may be reduced (see Kayahara, [0093]).
Claim 9. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein one component of the at least two components comprises die-cast aluminum and/or a wrought aluminum alloy. (Kayahara, [0041] lists a number of four digit series of wrought aluminum alloys.)
Claim 11. Kayahara discloses an apparatus for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, the apparatus comprising: (Kayahara, Fig. 14 shows a welding apparatus that performs a welding operation of at least two aluminum-containing components.)
a dividing device for subdividing the output laser beam into multiple partial beams to be directed onto the components such that multiple laser spots are generated on a surface of the components, and (Kayahara, [0046] “The diffractive optical element 123 splits laser light input from the collimator lens 121 into plural beams”; and [0047] “FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B each illustrate an arrangement of plural beams on a surface of the workpiece W, the surface being a surface that is irradiated with the laser light L.”)
wherein laser spot centers of at least three laser spots of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation, , (Kayahara, Fig. 3A shows at least three laser spots are arranged in the claimed ring formation; and [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously.”)
a scanner optical unit comprising a first mirror that is capable of being pivoted in a controlled manner for traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b” which is shown in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 14.)
Kayahara does not explicitly disclose a 2-in-1 fiber for emitting an output laser beam, wherein each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion.
Martinsen discloses a 2-in-1 fiber for emitting an output laser beam; (Martinsen, [0112] “FIGS. 17-21 depict examples of fibers configured to enable maintenance and/or confinement of adjusted beam characteristics in the second length of fiber (e.g., fiber 208). These fiber designs are referred to as “ring-shaped confinement fibers” because they contain a central core surrounded by annular or ring-shaped cores…”)
wherein each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion; (Martinsen, [0112] “FIGS. 17-21 depict examples of fibers configured to enable maintenance and/or confinement of adjusted beam characteristics in the second length of fiber (e.g., fiber 208). These fiber designs are referred to as “ring-shaped confinement fibers” because they contain a central core surrounded by annular or ring-shaped cores…Moreover, any of the first lengths of fiber described above with respect to FIGS. 11-16 may be combined with any of the second length of fiber described FIGS. 17-21” corresponding with the claimed multifiber which is defined further in paragraph [0026] of the specification; and Fig. 5 shows an example of the intensity distribution between confinement regions, where the central core or confinement region corresponds with the core portion, and the ring-shaped confinement region corresponds with the ring portion.)
Kayahara and Martinsen are analogous art because they are related to fiber welding systems. The first embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 1 does not explicitly disclose the optical fiber 130 as being a multifiber optical fiber, although it does disclose a diffractive optical element 123 capable of splitting the beam into multiple auxiliary beams. Martinsen discloses examples of fibers with a central core surrounded by annular or ring shaped confinement regions, separated from each other by a low index structural barrier or cladding regions. Because the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara allows for the splitting the laser light input into multiple auxiliary beams, it will similarly allow splitting the laser light input of Martinsen into plural laser spots with a beam profile having a core region and an annular region. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the fiber disclosed in Kayahara with the multifiber disclosed in Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because a multi-core optical fiber is a known alternative to a single fiber optical laser that achieves the predictable outcome of creating multiple laser beams when diffracted into a ring formation, wherein each laser beam in the ring formation has a core and annular region, in order to have more granular control of the beam characteristics for the purpose of laser welding.
Additionally, Martinsen teaches a Gaussian beam profile similar to what is taught in Kayahara paragraph [0049], where each of the main and plural auxiliary beams B1 and B2 of Kayahara may have a Gaussian form. However, the Gaussian beam profile of Martinsen depicted in 7A-7C differs because it is structurally separated by cladding layers 222 and 224, forming a clear central region and multiple annular region with different power densities. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the optical fiber used in the first embodiment of Kayahara with a multi-core fiber and employ the teachings to modify the beam characteristics as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution since having defined confinement regions as taught by Martinsen allows for a more granular control over the beam displacements for fine-tuning a beam profile (see Martinsen, [0085]).
Claim 12. The apparatus as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the scanner optical unit comprises a second mirror that is capable of being pivoted in a controlled manner for traversing the welding contour. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b.”)
Claim 13. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the multifiber comprises a 2-in-1 fiber. (Martinsen, [0112] “FIGS. 17-21 depict examples of fibers configured to enable maintenance and/or confinement of adjusted beam characteristics in the second length of fiber (e.g., fiber 208). These fiber designs are referred to as “ring-shaped confinement fibers” because they contain a central core surrounded by annular or ring-shaped cores…”)
Claim 14. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the welding is effected as deep penetration laser welding. (Kayahara, [0007] “temperature inside a keyhole formed in the workpiece is reduced such that metal vapor of a material forming the workpiece is not generated or generation of the metal vapor is reduced to an acceptable degree”; [0122] “Blowholes tend to be generated in welding of workpieces including aluminum. Vapor of a component metal generated in a keyhole generated in welding is a cause of generation of blowholes”; and Fig. 5 is a diagram illustrating results during lap welding when speed and output of the laser beam are changed.)
Although Kayahara does not explicitly disclose using the laser welding system for deep welding, it teaches a reduction of vapor inside a keyhole generated through the workpieces when welding, and shows a diagram where a change in output and speed allows the weld bead to penetrate the bottom of the lapped workpiece. The generation of the keyhole in the workpiece and its ability to propagate a weld bead completely through the workpiece fulfills the claimed “deep penetration welding” as defined by the instant specification paragraph [0006] as having “a vapor capillary (keyhole) being formed in the component material.”
Claims 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1, in further view of Tao et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200114469 A1.
Claim 5. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
Modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose further comprising, after a first traversal of the welding contour, traversing the welding contour at least partially for a second time, the second traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit.
Tao discloses further comprising, after a first traversal of the welding contour, traversing the welding contour at least partially for a second time, (Tao, Abstract “…advancing a laser beam (24) relative to the top surface (20) of the workpiece stack-up (10) multiple times along a closed-curve weld path (72)”; and [0043] “The laser beam 24 may be advanced multiple times along the closed-curved weld path 72 which, as previously indicated, corresponds essentially to the desired circumference of the laser weld joint 66 being formed. That is, the laser beam 24 is advanced more than once along the closed-curved weld path 72, meaning the laser beam 24 is effectively tracing the same weld path over and over again for a predetermined number of complete passes.”)
the second traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit. (Tao, [0026] “In a preferred implementation of the disclosed method, which is described below in more detail, a remote laser welding apparatus that includes a scanning optic laser head having tiltable mirrors and a z-axis focal lens is employed to conduct the disclosed laser welding method…”; and [0043] “The advancement of the laser beam 24 along the closed-curved weld path 72 at such a travel speed is managed by precisely controlling the coordinated movements of the tiltable scanning mirrors 58 within the scanning optic laser head 42 as described above.”)
Kayahara, Martinsen and Tao are analogous art because they are related to laser welding systems. Similar to Kayahara’s use of galvanoscanner mirrors and collimator lens to control the laser beam applied to the workpiece, Tao also discloses the use of a laser head having tiltable mirrors and a focal lens to conduct the multi-pass welding method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kayahara’s method of welding by traversing the workpiece with a second traversal taught by Tao using the similar components of mirrors and collimator lens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to the method of welding the workpiece in order to ensure that a melt puddle grows sufficiently large and penetrates into the workpiece stack-up (10) to establish a weld through all components (see Tao, [0006]).
Claim 6. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 5,
wherein the second traversal is effected with a lower power and/or a lower feed speed than the first traversal. (Tao, [0043] “The laser beam 24 may be advanced along the closed-curved weld path 72 at a beam travel speed of at least 8 m/min (meters per minute) and, more preferably, between 10 m/min and 50 m/min”; and [0050] “The characteristics of the operating laser beam 24 needed to perform such a laser welding method in addition to the relatively fast beam travel speed as applicable to at least the closed-curved weld path 72 can be ascertained with ease by those skilled in the art. To be sure, the laser beam 24 may have a power level that ranges from 1 kW to 50 kW and a focal position between −30 mm and +30 mm (relative to the top surface 20 of the workpiece stack-up 10) during repeated advancement along the closed-curved weld path 72, and may further have a power level that ranges from 0.5 kW to 20 kW and a focal position between −50 mm and +50 mm during advancement along the secondary beam travel pattern 86 if the secondary beam travel pattern 86 forms part of the laser welding method.”)
Tao teaches a power level range of 1kW to 50kW on the outer closed-curved weld path 72 during the multi-pass welding process. Tao also teaches a secondary beam pattern 86 located closer to the center of the weld traversing the same weld contour at least partially that may have a power level ranging from 0.5kW to 20kW, which is lower than the power level range required for the weld path 72, in order to close the central notch that may materialize in the laser weld joint during welding due to the stirring effect of the advancing laser beam, thereby remelting the central notch for aesthetic rather than functional, deeper welding reasons (see Tao, [0047]). This establishes the power level of the welding process, along with the location of the welding contour traversal distal or more central to the weld joint center, as a result effective variable. The power level directly controls how much energy is applied to the welding joint. A lower power as taught by Tao is sufficient enough to remelt the weld superficially to fix a central notch which does not generally adversely affect the mechanical properties, as opposed to a higher power level used to penetrate deep into all the lapped workpieces. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second traversal of the weld joint with a lower power as taught by Tao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to sufficiently remelt the weld joint in order to consume a central notch that may form from the stirring effect of a laser beam which can give an erroneous perception of a poor-quality weld joint.
Claim 8. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 5,
further comprising, after the second traversal of the welding contour, traversing the welding contour at least partially for a third time, (Tao, Abstract “…advancing a laser beam (24) relative to the top surface (20) of the workpiece stack-up (10) multiple times along a closed-curve weld path (72)”; and [0043] “The laser beam 24 may be advanced multiple times along the closed-curved weld path 72 which, as previously indicated, corresponds essentially to the desired circumference of the laser weld joint 66 being formed. That is, the laser beam 24 is advanced more than once along the closed-curved weld path 72, meaning the laser beam 24 is effectively tracing the same weld path over and over again for a predetermined number of complete passes.”)
the third traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit. (Tao, [0026] “In a preferred implementation of the disclosed method, which is described below in more detail, a remote laser welding apparatus that includes a scanning optic laser head having tiltable mirrors and a z-axis focal lens is employed to conduct the disclosed laser welding method…”; and [0043] “The advancement of the laser beam 24 along the closed-curved weld path 72 at such a travel speed is managed by precisely controlling the coordinated movements of the tiltable scanning mirrors 58 within the scanning optic laser head 42 as described above.”)
Kayahara, Martinsen and Tao are analogous art because they are related to laser welding systems. Similar to Kayahara’s use of galvanoscanner mirrors and collimator lens to control the laser beam applied to the workpiece, Tao also discloses the use of a laser head having tiltable mirrors and a focal lens to conduct the multi-pass welding method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kayahara’s method of welding by traversing the workpiece with a third traversal taught by Tao using the similar components of mirrors and collimator lens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to the method of welding the workpiece in order to ensure that a melt puddle grows sufficiently large and penetrates into the workpiece stack-up (10) to establish a weld through all components (see Tao, [0006]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1, in further view of Tao et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200114469 A1 and Hara et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 12053842 B2.
Claim 7. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 5.
Modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose further comprising capturing an image of the twice-traversed welding contour by an optical sensor and detecting defects based on the image, the image being captured during the second traversal of the welding contour.
Hara discloses further comprising capturing an image of the twice-traversed welding contour by an optical sensor and detecting defects based on the image, (Hara, col. 4 line 17 “… the camera 7 and the camera 11 respectively capture an image of the front surface of the metal plate 2 and an image of the back surface of the metal plate 3, and then output the captured images to a control device (not shown)” where the camera is responsible for capturing defects in the welded portion 4.)
the image being captured during the second traversal of the welding contour. (Hara, col. 2 line 19 “The disclosed embodiments have been made in light of the above-described problems, and an object of the disclosed embodiments is to provide a weld inspection apparatus capable of performing a simple and accurate on-line detection of a small weld defect in a welded portion,” the weld inspection apparatus performs the defect detection on-line as it travels along the welding direction.)
Kayahara, Martinsen, Tao and Hara are analogous art because they are related to laser welding systems. Modified Kayahara differs from the claimed invention only in that it does not explicitly disclose an image capturing component in order to detect defects on the welding contour. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding system of modified Kayahara to have an image capturing component in order to enable the system to inspect the welded portion for defects (see Hara, col. 2 line 19).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1, in further view of Fochtman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20080264389 A1.
Claim 10. Modified Kayahara discloses by the method as claimed in claim 1,
Modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components [by the method claimed in claim 1,] wherein the component arrangement is impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour.
a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components [by the method as claimed in claim 1,] wherein the component arrangement is impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour. (Fochtman, [0052] “The annular weld bead 281 formed by the laser beam 299 joins the external surface 286 with the internal surface 285 in the non-contact region 291. The weld bead 281 forms a hermetic seal preventing liquids and gases from passing between the components 208, 210.”)
Kayahara, Martinsen and Fochtman are analogous art because they are related to laser welding systems. Although modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose the weld bead being impermeable to a cooling liquid, it teaches methods to reduce the blowholes generated in the welding seam or bead during welding, as exemplified in Kayahara paragraph [0061] where tweaks in power ratio between main and auxiliary beams, sweep speed and laser output yielded a satisfactory bean and reduced formation of blowholes. Similarly in Fochtman paragraphs [0006]-[0008], they describe a similar “blowhole” welding defect where a rapid increase of internal pressure on a weld due to increase in temperature may subject the weld area to “blow out” the molten weld pool, which leaves a hole or gap in the weld bead that increases leak-related scrap during assembly process. In Fochtman paragraph [0054], it discloses than the gap between the weld overlap region may contribute to the “blow out” of the molten pool, and a narrower gap is preferred to reduce “blow out” at the weld overlap. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the top and bottom component arrangement to have minimal gap between them in order to further reduce generation of the “blowhole” welding defects. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to ensure the hermetic integrity of the weld bead.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-7 and 10-12 of copending Application No. 18393748 (reference application) in view of Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in further view of Tao et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20200114469 A1, and Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other
because the reference claims disclose, or render obvious, elements of the pending claims as shown below.
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1. A method for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, wherein the components each have a content of at least 75% by weight of aluminum, the method comprising:
subdividing an output laser beam into multiple partial beams directed onto the components, such that multiple laser spots are generated on a surface of the components, and
traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots,
wherein laser spot centers of at least three laser spots of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation,
wherein the output laser beam is generated by a multifiber, such that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion, and
wherein the welding contour is at least partially traversed by pivoting a first mirror in a controlled manner by a scanner optical unit.
Claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising, after a first traversal of the welding contour, traversing the welding contour at least partially for a second time, the second traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit.
Claim 11. An apparatus for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, the apparatus comprising:
a 2-in-1 fiber for emitting an output laser beam;
a dividing device for subdividing the output laser beam into multiple partial beams to be directed onto the components such that multiple laser spots are generated on a surface of the components, and wherein laser spot centers of at least three laser spots of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation, wherein each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion;
a scanner optical unit comprising a first mirror that is capable of being pivoted in a controlled manner for traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots.
Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising capturing an image of the twice-traversed welding contour by an optical sensor and detecting defects based on the image, the image being captured during the second traversal of the welding contour.
Claim 8. The method as claimed in claim 5, further comprising, after the second traversal of the welding contour, traversing the welding contour at least partially for a third time, the third traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit.
Claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein one component of the at least two components comprises die-cast aluminum and/or a wrought aluminum alloy.
Claim 10. A component arrangement produced by welding at least two components by the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the component arrangement is impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour.
Claim 14. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding is effected as deep penetration laser welding.
Claim 1. A method for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, the method comprising:
subdividing an output laser beam into multiple partial beams directed onto the at least two components, so that multiple laser spots are generated on a surface of the at least two components, and
traversing a welding contour with the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components,
wherein centers of at least three laser spots of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation,
wherein the output laser beam is generated by a multifiber, so that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion, and wherein the welding contour is traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time.
Claim 11. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two components has an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight.
Claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising recording the twice-traversed welding contour by an optical sensor, and detecting defects.
Claim 6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the recording is taken when the welding contour is being traversed the second time.
Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding contour is at least partially traversed a third time after the welding contour has been traversed the second time.
Claim 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein one component of the at least two components comprises die-cast aluminum or a wrought aluminum alloy.
Claim 10. A component arrangement produced by welding at least two components using a method as claimed in claim 1, the component arrangement being impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour.
Claim 12. The method as claim in claim 1, wherein the welding is deep penetration laser welding.
Regarding claim 1, the reference claims do not explicitly disclose wherein the welding contour is at least partially traversed by pivoting a first mirror in a controlled manner by a scanner optical unit.
However, Kayahara discloses wherein the welding contour is at least partially traversed by pivoting a first mirror in a controlled manner by a scanner optical unit. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b” which is shown in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 14.)
An embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 14 teaches an assembly where mirrors 224a and 224b are used to control the beam during a welding process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding apparatus to include a galvanoscanner that controls the angles of at least one mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to better control the laser light to enable beam sweeping without moving the optical head.
Regarding claim 5, the reference claims do not explicitly disclose the second traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit.
However, Tao discloses the second traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit. (Tao, [0026] “In a preferred implementation of the disclosed method, which is described below in more detail, a remote laser welding apparatus that includes a scanning optic laser head having tiltable mirrors and a z-axis focal lens is employed to conduct the disclosed laser welding method…”; and [0043] “The advancement of the laser beam 24 along the closed-curved weld path 72 at such a travel speed is managed by precisely controlling the coordinated movements of the tiltable scanning mirrors 58 within the scanning optic laser head 42 as described above.”)
Similar to Kayahara’s use of galvanoscanner mirrors and collimator lens to control the laser beam applied to the workpiece, Tao also discloses the use of a laser head having tiltable mirrors and a focal lens to conduct the multi-pass welding method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kayahara’s method of welding by traversing the workpiece with a second traversal taught by Tao using the similar components of mirrors and collimator lens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to the method of welding the workpiece in order to ensure that a melt puddle grows sufficiently large and penetrates into the workpiece stack-up (10) to establish a weld through all components (see Tao, [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, the reference claims do not explicitly disclose a 2-in-1 fiber for emitting an output laser beam; and a scanner optical unit comprising a first mirror that is capable of being pivoted in a controlled manner for traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots.
However, Martinsen discloses a 2-in-1 fiber for emitting an output laser beam. (Martinsen, [0112] “FIGS. 17-21 depict examples of fibers configured to enable maintenance and/or confinement of adjusted beam characteristics in the second length of fiber (e.g., fiber 208). These fiber designs are referred to as “ring-shaped confinement fibers” because they contain a central core surrounded by annular or ring-shaped cores…”)
Martinsen discloses examples of fibers with a central core surrounded by annular or ring shaped confinement regions, separated from each other by a low index structural barrier or cladding regions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the fiber disclosed with the multifiber disclosed in Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution because a multi-core optical fiber is a known alternative to a single fiber optical laser that achieves the predictable outcome of creating multiple laser beams when diffracted into a ring formation, wherein each laser beam in the ring formation has a core and annular region, in order to have more granular control of the beam characteristics for the purpose of laser welding.
Kayahara discloses a scanner optical unit comprising a first mirror that is capable of being pivoted in a controlled manner for traversing a welding contour on the surface of the components with the multiple laser spots. (Kayahara, [0092] “Furthermore, the optical head 220 has a galvanoscanner placed between the condenser lens 222 and the workpiece W10. The galvanoscanner is a device that moves the position irradiated with the laser light L to enable sweeping with the laser light L without moving the optical head 220, by controlling the angles of two mirrors 224a and 224b” which is shown in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 14.)
An embodiment of Kayahara shown in Fig. 14 teaches an assembly where mirrors 224a and 224b are used to control the beam during a welding process. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laser welding apparatus to include a galvanoscanner that controls the angles of at least one mirror. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to better control the laser light to enable beam sweeping without moving the optical head.
Regarding claim 8, the reference claims do not explicitly disclose the third traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit.
However, Tao discloses the third traversal of the welding contour also being effected by the scanner optical unit. (Tao, [0026] “In a preferred implementation of the disclosed method, which is described below in more detail, a remote laser welding apparatus that includes a scanning optic laser head having tiltable mirrors and a z-axis focal lens is employed to conduct the disclosed laser welding method…”; and [0043] “The advancement of the laser beam 24 along the closed-curved weld path 72 at such a travel speed is managed by precisely controlling the coordinated movements of the tiltable scanning mirrors 58 within the scanning optic laser head 42 as described above.”)
Similar to Kayahara’s use of galvanoscanner mirrors and collimator lens to control the laser beam applied to the workpiece, Tao also discloses the use of a laser head having tiltable mirrors and a focal lens to conduct the multi-pass welding method. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kayahara’s method of welding by traversing the workpiece with a third traversal taught by Tao using the similar components of mirrors and collimator lens. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to the method of welding the workpiece in order to ensure that a melt puddle grows sufficiently large and penetrates into the workpiece stack-up (10) to establish a weld through all components (see Tao, [0006]).
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 20 of copending Application No. 18393755 (reference application) in view of Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US Patent Application Publication No. 20220088703 A1, in further view of Martinsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20180217410 A1.
The rejection of these claims are similar to the analysis above.
These rejections are all provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights