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 .
Drawings
Fig. 7 is objected to because it shows a grayscale image of a microsection. The grayscale rendering makes it difficult to differentiate the regions between the components, the weld seam, and the surrounding base material. Photographs and grayscale images are not ordinarily permitted in utility applications, and where permitted, must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible. See 37 CFR 1.84(b) and (l).
Fig. 10 is objected to for the same reason, as it is also a grayscale image of a microsection in which the regions between the components are difficult to differentiate.
Applicant is required to provide replacement drawings, for example line drawings, that clearly differentiate the regions of the components and the weld seam. See MPEP 608.02.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the at least two components” in lines 3-4, and “the components” in lines 6-7 and line 11. These limitations are inconsistent with the antecedent basis established in line 1, where the components are first introduced as “at least two aluminum-containing components” in line 1. The examiner suggests claim 1 should be amended to consistently refer to the components as “the at least two aluminum-containing components” in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “at least two components” in line 1. For the same reason as discussed above for claim 1, the examiner suggests “at least two components” should be changed to “at least two aluminum-containing components.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 are 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 1 recites “a first time” in line 13. The claim does not explicitly introduce or designate the initial traversal of the welding contour as “a first time” when it is first recited earlier in the claim as “traversing a welding contour with the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components.” As a result, the limitation “a first time” lacks explicit antecedent basis, and it is unclear whether the initial traversal recited earlier in the claim is the same as the “first time,” or another new traversal. The scope of claim 1 is therefore indefinite. For the same reason, its dependent claims 2-12 are rejected as well.
Claim 3 recites “the second traversal” in line 1 and “the first traversal” in line 2. Neither “a first traversal” nor “a second traversal” are explicitly introduced in claim 1. Claim 1 only recites “traversed at least partially a second time” and “traversed a first time.” As a result, there are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations “the first traversal” and “the second traversal” in the claim, and the scope of claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 3 further recites “the second traversal is performed with lower power and/or a lower advancement speed than the first traversal” in lines 1-2. However, the specification in ¶ [0048] recites “the second traversal therefore takes place with lower power and/or a higher advancement speed than the first traversal,” which the examiner considers a direct contradiction to the limitation in the claim. The specification is further inconsistent in ¶ [0060], which recites that “the second traversal takes place with lower power but the same advancement speed” as the first traversal. As a result, the scope of claim 3 is unclear and therefore indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 3 as reciting “the second traversal is performed with lower power and/or an advancement speed equal to or greater than the first traversal,” in order to encompass both embodiments described in the specification (¶ [0048]: higher advancement speed; ¶ [0060]: same advancement speed), consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. The examiner suggests the applicant should reconcile the inconsistency between claim 3 and the specification.
Claim 5 recites “the twice-traversed welding contour” in lines 1-2. However, “a twice-traversed welding contour” is not explicitly introduced in claim 1 or claim 5. As a result, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the twice-traversed welding contour” in claim 5, and the scope of claim 5 is therefore indefinite. For the same reason, its dependent claim 6 is rejected as well.
Claim 8 recites “the thrice-traversed welding contour” in lines 1-2. However, “a thrice-traversed welding contour” is not explicitly introduced in any preceding claim or in claim 8. As a result, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the thrice-traversed welding contour” in claim 8, and the scope of claim 8 is therefore indefinite. For the same reason, its dependent claim 9 is rejected as well.
Claim 10 recites “the welded welding contour” in line 3. However, “a welded welding contour” is not explicitly introduced in claim 1 or claim 10. As a results, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the welded welding contour” in claim 10 and the scope of claim 10 is therefore indefinite.
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 and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/393,755 in view of Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 2-12, which depend on claim 1, are also rejected for the same reason.
Although claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other since claim 1 of the copending application reads into and therefore anticipates the pending claims as shown in Table 1, except that the pending claim further requires the welding contour being traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time.
However, such modification is consistent with well-known methods in the art, as shown by Beck, which teaches traversing the welding contour a second time after it has been traversed a first time, wherein the second traversal re-melts and smooths the previously welded weld seam (Beck, ¶ [0007]: “the metal parts to be joined are melted in a weld region through an energy input by means of a laser beam with the formation of a weld seam[, and] … a further step is provided wherein the surface of the weld seam is smoothed by a further energy input with partial melting of the weld seam in the region of the surface”; ¶ [0062]: “A defocused travel over the weld seam 22 … in the opposite direction to the previous movement direction … whereby the surface 28 … is re-melted … of the previously welded and largely already solidified weld seam 22”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of copending claim 1, directed to welding at least two aluminum-containing components by subdividing an output laser beam generated by a multifiber into multiple partial beams generating multiple laser spots in a ring formation each having a core portion and a ring portion while traversing a welding contour, to further traverse the welding contour at least partially a second time after it has been traversed a first time, as taught by Beck, in order to re-melt and smooth the previously welded weld seam, thereby improving the topography and quality of the weld seam.
Although claim 10 of the instant application is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from each other since claim 20 of the copending application reads into and therefore anticipates the pending claims as shown in Table 1. In particular, claim 20 of the copending application reads on a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components by the method of copending claim 1, the component arrangement being impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour—language that is near-verbatim to claim 10 of the instant application. The sole distinction between the two product claims is that the instant claim 10 is produced by the method of instant claim 1, which includes the second traversal. As set forth above, the addition of the second traversal to the copending method is obvious in view of Beck, and therefore instant claim 10 is not patentably distinct from copending claim 20.
Table 1
Claims of instant application
(like language bolded)
Claims in 18393755
(like language bolded)
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.
1. A method for welding at least two aluminum-containing components, the components each having an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight, the method comprising: subdividing an output laser beam into multiple partial beams directed onto the components, so 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, so that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components has a core portion and a ring portion, with a mean power density in the core portion being higher than a mean power density in the ring portion.
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.
20. A component arrangement produced by welding at least two components by a method as claimed in claim 1, the component arrangement being impermeable to a cooling liquid, at the welded welding contour.
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.
1. … the components each having an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight …
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-10 and 14 of copending Application No. 18/391,699 in view of Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 2-12, which depend on claim 1, are also rejected for the same reason.
Although claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-12 of the instant application are not identical to claims 1, 5-10 and 14 of the copending application, they are not patentably distinct from each other since the claims of the copending application read into and therefore anticipate the pending claims as shown in Table 2, except that claim 1 of the instant application and claims depending therefrom further require the welding contour being traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time.
However, such modification is consistent with well-known methods in the art, as shown by Beck, which teaches traversing the welding contour a second time after it has been traversed a first time, wherein the second traversal re-melts and smooths the previously welded weld seam (Beck, ¶¶ [0007] and [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of copending claim 1 directed to welding at least two aluminum-containing components by subdividing an output laser beam generated by a multifiber into multiple partial beams generating multiple laser spots in a ring formation each having a core portion and ring portion while traversing a welding contour, to further traverse the welding contour at least partially a second time after it has been traversed a first time, as taught by Beck, in order to re-melt and smooth the previously welded weld seam thereby improving the topography and quality of the weld seam.
Furthermore, claim 5 of the copending application, which depends from copending claim 1 and adds a second traversal of the welding contour, reads on all elements of instant claim 1. Instant claim 1 is therefore not patentably distinct from copending claim 5, since the two claims cover the same core method.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, claim 10 is provisionally rejected over claim 10 of copending application, which reads on a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components by the copending claim 1 method, the component arrangement being impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour—language that is near-verbatim to instant claim 10. As set forth above, the method differences between instant claim 1 and copending claim 1 are not patentably distinguishing in view of Beck, and therefore instant claim 10 is not patentably distinct from claim 10 of the copending application.
Table 2
Claims of instant application
(like language bolded)
Claims in 18391699
(like language bolded)
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.
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.
1. … the welding contour is traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time.
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.
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.
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.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second traversal is performed with lower power and/or a lower advancement speed than the first traversal.
6. 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.
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising recording the twice-traversed welding contour by an optical sensor, and detecting defects.
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.
6. The method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the recording is taken when the welding contour is being traversed the second time.
7. … the image being captured during the second traversal of the welding contour.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. … the components each have a content of at least 75% by weight of aluminum …
12. The method as claim in claim 1, wherein the welding is deep penetration laser welding.
14. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding is effected as deep penetration laser welding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherbakov et al. (US 20180147660) hereinafter Scherbakov.
Regarding claim 10, Scherbakov discloses a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components (“work pieces”; ¶ [0051]: “the present invention … to produce quality spot welds of aluminum and various aluminum alloys”; ¶ [0018]: “the sequence of activating each distinct fiber laser outputs is configured to provide a seam weld to the plurality of work pieces”; the examiner interprets the plurality of work pieces joined at the welded seam as corresponding to the claimed component arrangement produced by welding at least two components) using a method as claimed in claim 1 (title: “method for welding”), the component arrangement being impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour (the examiner takes the position that a sound, continuous weld seam joining two metal components, as taught by Scherbakov, is inherently impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour, because a properly formed weld joint necessarily provides an impermeable barrier to a medium at the weld location. See MPEP 2113.).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is a product-process claim. That is, the claimed steps of welding at least two aluminum-containing components by subdividing an output laser beam generated by a multifiber into multiple partial beams generating multiple laser spots in a ring formation each having a core portion and a ring portion, traversing a welding contour with the multiple laser spots, and traversing the welding contour at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time, are steps that describe the method of producing the component arrangement of claim 1. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113. Accordingly, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck renders claim 10 unpatentable, since Scherbakov, Flamm and Beck teaches all of the structure of the component arrangement of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherbakov et al. (US 20180147660) hereinafter Scherbakov, in view of Flamm et al. (DE 102019210019) hereinafter Flamm, and further in view of Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck, as evidenced by Eika Mehr Kimiya (NPL) hereinafter EMK. For the examination purposes, the examiner refers to US 20220126396, which is the U.S published application corresponding to DE 102019210019.
Regarding claim 1, Scherbakov teaches
a method for welding (title: “method for welding”) at least two aluminum-containing components (“work pieces”) (¶ [0017]: “a method of welding a plurality of work pieces”; ¶ [0051]: “the present invention … to produce quality spot welds of aluminum and various aluminum alloys”; the examiner interprets the plurality of work pieces made of aluminum as at least two aluminum-containing components), the method (“method”) comprising:
delivering multiple partial beams (“fiber outputs” of a laser system) (¶ [0017]: “a laser system including at least three fiber laser modules if the fiber outputs are arranged circumferentially or otherwise at least four fiber laser modules, each of which being configured to operate independently from the others and provide distinct fiber laser outputs”; ¶ [0044]: “a laser system 10 delivers three different outputs through delivery optical fibers 29a-29g that are coupled to a bulk optic 34”; ¶ [0051]: “the seven fibers are spaced apart with respect to each other in a pre-determined arrangement”; ¶ [0053]: “Each individual spot is less than a mm in diameter”; the examiner interprets a plurality of distinct fiber laser outputs as corresponding to the multiple partial beams being delivered) directed onto the at least two components (“work pieces”), so that multiple laser spots (¶ [0053]: “spot”; ¶ [0013]: “laser outputs combine to create a spot weld”) are generated on a surface (¶ [0023]: “the relative and absolute positions of the output of the delivery fibers … when contacting a work piece”; the examiner interprets the area where the fiber outputs contact the work piece as corresponding to a surface of the work piece) of the at least two components (“work pieces”), and
traversing a welding contour (“seam”) with the multiple laser spots (“spots”) on the surface (¶ [0023]: area per the examiner’s interpretation) of the components (“work pieces”) (¶ [0018]: “the sequence of activating each distinct fiber laser outputs is configured to provide a seam weld to the plurality of work pieces”; ¶ [0014]: “The configuration of 6 fibers in a hexagon can also provide for a virtual wobble function for a seam weld if activated in sequence while a workpiece or the laser move with respect to each other along such a seam”; the examiner interprets the seam along which the workpiece or the laser move with respect to each other as corresponding to a welding contour being traversed with the multiple laser spots),
wherein centers of at least three laser spots (“spots” generated by “at least three fiber outputs”) of the multiple laser spots are arranged in a ring formation (“circumferential patter”) (¶ [0001]: “at least three fiber outputs arranged in a circumferential pattern”; ¶ [0014]: “The configuration of 6 fibers in a hexagon”; ¶ [0048]: “the first fiber used in the sequence that is preferably in the center of the configuration … while external lasers that form the outline of the hexagon”; ¶ [0060]: “three outputs are arranged circumferentially”; ¶ [0023]; ¶ [0053]: “a work piece treated by a focused output from the delivery fiber configuration … [e]ach individual spot is less than a mm in diameter”; the examiner interprets that the at least three fiber outputs arranged in a circumferential/hexagonal pattern about a center generate at least three corresponding laser spots whose centers are likewise arranged in a ring formation).
Regarding claim 1, Scherbakov does not explicitly teach
an output laser beam is subdivided into multiple partial beams,
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.
However, Flamm teaches, in Fig. 1, a method for the laser welding of a workpiece (¶ [0035]), the method comprising:
subdividing an output laser beam (4, “profiled laser beam”; Fig. 1 shows the profiled laser beam 4 is provided at the second fiber end 15 of the multiclad fiber 8, collimated to 18, which the examiner interprets as the claimed output laser beam) into multiple partial beams (¶ [0065]: “ A beam splitter device 19 then splits the collimated laser beam 18 among at least three partial beams 20a, 20b, namely two leading partial beams and a trailing partial beam”; the examiner interprets the collimated laser beam split by the beam splitter device into the plurality of partial beams as corresponding to an output laser beam being subdivided into multiple partial beams),
wherein the output laser beam (4) is generated by a multifiber (8, “multiclad fiber”; ¶ [0064]: “at a second (output-side) fiber end 15 of the multiclad fiber 8, the laser beam 4 is made available with a so-called two-stage top-hat beam profile,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the multiclad fiber having a core fiber and at least one ring fiber, which generates the profiled laser beam 4, as corresponding to the output laser beam being generated by a multifiber), so that each laser spot of the multiple laser spots (25a & 25b, “beam spots”) on the surface of the components (2, “work piece”) (Fig. 1 shows the beam spots 25a, 25b are on the surface of workpiece 2) has a core portion (Fig. 6: 50, “core zone”) and a ring portion (Fig. 6: 51, “ring zone”) (¶ [0065]: “The beam spots 25a, 25b each have the beam profile impressed by the laser beam source 3 and in particular the multiclad fiber 8 there”; ¶ [0084]: “All the partial beams 20a, 20b, 20c are typically generated from the same input laser beam, which has obtained a particular beam profile as a result of passing through a multiclad fiber; all the partial beams 20a, 20b, 20c then accordingly also have the beam profile[,] … [t]he beam profile comprises in each case a core zone 50 … and a ring zone 51”; the examiner interprets each beam spot/partial beam on the workpiece having the impressed beam profile with a core zone 50 and a surrounding ring zone 51 as corresponding to each laser spot of the multiple laser spots on the surface of the components having a core portion and a ring portion).
Scherbakov and Flamm are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of a laser welding apparatus using a plurality of partial beams. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-spot laser welding of Scherbakov such that the output laser beam is generated by a multifiber and subdivided into multiple partial beams so that each laser spot has a core portion and a ring portion as taught by Flamm, in order to “weld a workpiece or the workpiece parts thereof with a high seam quality both on the top side of the workpiece and on the underside of the workpiece with a high feed speed.” Flamm, ¶ [0036].
PNG
media_image1.png
406
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Flamm
PNG
media_image2.png
266
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Flamm
Regarding claim 1, Scherbakov and Flamm does not explicitly teach
the welding contour is traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time.
However, Beck teaches, Fig. 1, a method for welding (10, “method”; abstract: “a method for welding two metal parts”), wherein
the welding contour (22, “weld seam”) is traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour (22) has been traversed a first time (¶ [0007]: “the metal parts to be joined are melted in a weld region through an energy input by means of a laser beam with the formation of a weld seam[, and] … a further step is provided wherein the surface of the weld seam is smoothed by a further energy input with partial melting of the weld seam in the region of the surface”; ¶ [0016]: “defocused travel can take place directly in the reverse direction, thus in the opposite direction to the formation of the weld seam”; ¶ [0025]: “ the laser beam is defocused through the scanner and is guided contrary to the weld direction over the previously welded seam”; ¶ [0062]: “A defocused travel over the weld seam 22 … in the opposite direction to the previous movement direction … whereby the surface 28 … is re-melted … of the previously welded and largely already solidified weld seam 22”; the examiner interprets the further energy input that re-melts the previously welded seam by traveling over the weld seam a further time as corresponding to the welding contour being traversed at least partially a second time after the welding contour has been traversed a first time).
Scherbakov, Flamm and Beck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of workpieces to improve weld seam quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-spot laser welding of Scherbakov and Flamm, such that the welding contour is traversed at least partially a second time after it has been traversed a first time, as taught by Beck, in order to have “[t]he topography of the weld seam … smoother,” thereby “the two metal parts have a very high functionality in the weld region.” Beck, ¶ [0008].
PNG
media_image3.png
346
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Beck
Regarding claim 2, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein one component of the at least two components (Scherbakov: “work pieces”) comprises aluminum (Scherbakov, ¶ [0051]: “aluminum and various aluminum alloys”), but does not explicitly teach one component comprises die-cast aluminum or a wrought aluminum alloy.
However, Beck teaches a method for welding (10, “method”; abstract: “a method for welding two metal parts”), wherein one component of the at least two components comprises die-cast aluminum or a wrought aluminum alloy (Beck, ¶ [0004]: “at least one of the joint element is formed from an aluminum alloy of series 5000 or 7000”; ¶ [0048]: “a first metal part 12 to a second metal part 14 which have been formed from an aluminum alloy of the series 5000 or 7000”; the examiner interprets an aluminum alloy of the series 5000 or 7000, which is a wrought aluminum alloy, as corresponding to a wrought aluminum alloy).
Scherbakov, Flamm and Beck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of aluminum-containing workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the wrought aluminum alloy material of series 5000 or 7000 as taught by Beck to the multi-spot laser welding method of Scherbakov and Flamm, in order to produce “a very good surface quality in the weld region, [and ensure] … a high functionality” or the welded aluminum components. Beck, ¶ [0009].
Regarding claim 3, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second traversal (Beck: “defocused travel”) is performed with lower power and/or a lower advancement speed than the first traversal (Beck, ¶ [0059]: “The weld speed … is 10 m/min”; ¶ [0062]: “ The defocused travel thereby takes place with a power of the laser of 6 kW and a speed of approximately 18 m/min”; the examiner interprets the defocused second traversal performed at a higher advancement speed (18 m/min) than the first traversal (10 m/min) as corresponding to the second traversal being performed with an advancement speed equal to or greater than the first traversal).
Regarding claim 4, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm teaches the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a weld depth is less than 10 mm.
However, Beck teaches a weld depth (Fig. 1: s, “penetration depth”) is less than 10 mm (¶ [0053]: “a penetration depth s of the weld seam 22 is formed to be lower than an overall material thickness tges of the metal parts 12 and 14 to be joined”; ¶ [0055]: “the sheet thickness of the two metal parts 12 and 14 is respectively 1.5 mm”; ¶ [0059]: “Said residual material thickness region remains with an extension (thickness) of 0.2 to 1 mm in the direction of the laser beam”; the examiner interprets the penetration depth of the weld seam formed in metal parts each having a sheet thickness of 1.5 mm, leaving a residual material thickness of 0.2 to 1 mm, as corresponding to a weld depth that is less than 10 mm).
Scherbakov, Flamm and Beck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a weld depth of less than 10 mm as taught by Beck to the multi-spot laser welding method of Scherbakov and Flamm, in order to “achieve a very good surface quality of the lower surface[] [while] constitute[ing] a particularly solid connection between the metal parts.” Beck, ¶ [0076].
Regarding claim 10, the following 103 rejection of claim 10 does not supersede the 102 rejection set forth above. The 103 rejection is included in the record to expedite prosecution.
Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck renders claim 10 unpatentable for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. A component arrangement produced by the method of claim 1 as taught by the combination would inherently be impermeable to a medium at the welded welding contour, since a continuous, re-melted, and defect-free welded weld seam joining two components would predictably provide a media-tight joint along the welded welding contour as further supported by Beck (¶ [0008]: “this at least area-wise re-melting and smoothing of the surface … results in a removal of the individual raised element … [t]he topography of the weld seam is now no longer sharp edged but instead much smoother”; ¶ [0067]: “[t]he surface 28 is substantially smoother and has no further sharp edges”). See MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 11, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two components has an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight (Beck, ¶ [0048]: “a first metal part 12 to a second metal part 14 which have been formed from an aluminum alloy of the series 5000 or 7000”; EMK evidenced that aluminum alloy of the series 5000 has an aluminum content of approximately 95.5% by weight; the examiner interprets an aluminum alloy of the series 5000 or 7000, having an aluminum content of at least 95.5% by weight as evidenced by EMK, as corresponding to each of the at least two components having an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight).
Regarding claim 12, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claim in claim 1, wherein the welding is deep penetration laser welding (Flamm, ¶ [0022]: “good quality of weld seams in conjunction with relatively high feed speed, in particular for laser welding with full penetration welding”; ¶ [0026]: “[t]he full penetration welding can be implemented with the trailing partial beam”; ¶ [0088]: “[t]he trailing partial beam produces a melt pool region that extends as far as the underside of the workpiece (“full penetration welding”)”; the examiner interprets the full penetration welding, in which the melt pool extends through the workpiece to the underside via a deeply penetrating laser beam, as corresponding to deep penetration laser welding).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherbakov et al. (US 20180147660) hereinafter Scherbakov, in view of Flamm et al. (DE 102019210019) hereinafter Flamm, Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck, and further in view of Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071) hereinafter Pfitzner. For the examination purposes, the examiner refers to US 20220126396, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 102019210019.
Regarding claim 5, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising recording the twice-traversed welding contour (Beck: 22, “weld seam”) (¶ [0007]: “the metal parts to be joined are melted in a weld region through an energy input by means of a laser beam with the formation of a weld seam[, and] … a further step is provided wherein the surface of the weld seam is smoothed by a further energy input with partial melting of the weld seam in the region of the surface”; ¶ [0062]: “A defocused travel over the weld seam 22 … in the opposite direction to the previous movement direction … whereby the surface 28 … is re-melted … of the previously welded and largely already solidified weld seam 22”; the examiner interprets the weld seam after it has been re-melted by the further defocused traversal as corresponding to the twice-traversed welding contour) by a sensor (Flamm, ¶ [0043]: “the welding is monitored using a sensor; by way of example, it is possible to carry out adjustment toward a specific (average) melt pool size”), but does not explicitly teach the sensor is an optical sensor.
However, Pfitzner teaches, in Fig. 1, a method for detecting defects during a laser-machining process (title) comprising an optical sensor (38, “camera”) configured to detect defects (¶ [0047]: “For the optical monitoring of the laser welding process, in particular for detecting defects in the weld seam 36, a camera 38 is arranged in or on the scan head 12[, and] [t]he camera 38 has a detector 40 (e.g., a photodetector),” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed optical sensor configured to detect defects).
Scherbakov, Flamm, Beck and Pfitzner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Scherbakov, as modified by Flamm and Beck, such that the sensor recording the welding contour is an optical sensor configured to detect defects as taught by Pfitzner, in order to provide “fast, simple, and reliable detection of defects in … weld seams … during a laser-machining process.” Pfitzner, ¶ [0008].
PNG
media_image4.png
445
457
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Pfitzner
Regarding claim 6, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm, Beck and Pfitzner teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 5, wherein the recording is taken (Pfitzner, ¶ [0016]: “the detection of defects during the machining process in real time”; ¶ [0048]: “a rectangular detection field 46 of the detector 40 is moved along the weld path 34 with the laser beam 14 in a synchronized manner, as the laser beam 14 is moved with respect to the workpieces”; the examiner interprets the optical sensor recording the weld seam in real time, synchronized with the laser beam as the laser beam traverses the welding contour, as corresponding to the recording being taken when the welding contour is being traversed) when the welding contour (Beck: 22, “weld seam”) is being traversed the second time (Beck, ¶ [0062]: “Directly after the formation of the weld seam 22 the laser beam 20 is defocused by +40 mm … A defocused travel over the weld seam 22 … in the opposite direction to the previous movement direction is carried out,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the welding contour being traversed the second time).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherbakov et al. (US 20180147660) hereinafter Scherbakov, in view of Flamm et al. (DE 102019210019) hereinafter Flamm, Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20200171603) hereinafter Yang. For the examination purposes, the examiner refers to US 20220126396, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 102019210019.
Regarding claim 7, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm and Beck teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the welding contour is at least partially traversed a third time after the welding contour has been traversed the second time.
However, Yang teaches a method of laser welding together two or more overlapping metal workpieces (abstract), wherein a welding contour is at least partially traversed a third time after the welding contour has been traversed the second time (¶ [0013]: “advancing the laser beam along a third weld path, which overlaps with each of the first weld path and the second weld path, … the laser beam may be advanced along the third weld path after the elongated melt puddle has fully solidified into the laser weld joint so that the laser beam impinges the top surface of the laser weld joint and momentarily remelts a top region of the laser weld joint so that, upon resolidification, the top surface of the laser weld joint is rendered smooth”; the examiner interprets advancing the laser beam along a third weld path overlapping the first and second weld paths, re-melting the top region of the weld joint upon resolidification rendering the surface smooth, as corresponding to the welding contour being traversed at least partially a third time after the welding contour has been traversed the second time).
Scherbakov, Flamm, Beck and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of workpieces to improve weld seam quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-spot laser welding method taught by Scherbakov, Flamm and Beck to traverse the welding contour at least partially a third time after it has been traversed the second time as taught by Yang, in order to provide “the laser weld joint with a top surface having a surface roughness (Ra) of 15 um or less” such that “the top surface of the laser weld joint is rendered smooth.” Yang, ¶ [0013].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherbakov et al. (US 20180147660) hereinafter Scherbakov, in view of Flamm et al. (DE 102019210019) hereinafter Flamm, Beck et al. (US 20120298638) hereinafter Beck, Yang et al. (US 20200171603) hereinafter Yang, and further in view of Pfitzner et al. (US 20140175071) hereinafter Pfitzner. For the examination purposes, the examiner refers to US 20220126396, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to DE 102019210019.
Regarding claim 8, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm, Beck and Yang teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 7, further comprising recording the thrice-traversed welding contour (Yang, ¶ [0013]: “third weld path”) (Beck: 22, “weld seam”; ¶ [0062]: “A defocused travel over the weld seam 22 … in the opposite direction to the previous movement direction … whereby the surface 28 … is re-melted … of the previously welded and largely already solidified weld seam 22”) (the examiner interprets the weld seam after it has been re-melted by the defocused second traversal as taught by Beck, and further traversed a third time as taught by Yang, as corresponding to the thrice-traversed welding contour) by a sensor (Flamm, ¶ [0043]: “the welding is monitored using a sensor; by way of example, it is possible to carry out adjustment toward a specific (average) melt pool size”), but does not explicitly teach the sensor is an optical sensor, detecting defects.
However, Pfitzner teaches, in Fig. 1, a method for detecting defects during a laser-machining process (title) comprising an optical sensor (38, “camera”) configured to detect defects (¶ [0047]: “For the optical monitoring of the laser welding process, in particular for detecting defects in the weld seam 36, a camera 38 is arranged in or on the scan head 12[, and] [t]he camera 38 has a detector 40 (e.g., a photodetector),” which the examiner interprets as teaching the claimed optical sensor configured to detect defects).
Scherbakov, Flamm, Beck, Yang and Pfitzner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of workpieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Scherbakov, as modified by Flamm, Beck and Yang, such that the sensor recording the welding contour is an optical sensor configured to detect defects as taught by Pfitzner, in order to provide “fast, simple, and reliable detection of defects in … weld seams … during a laser-machining process.” Pfitzner, ¶ [0008].
Regarding claim 9, Scherbakov in combination with Flamm, Beck, Yang and Pfitzner teaches
the method (Scherbakov: “method”) as claimed in claim 8, wherein the recording is taken (Pfitzner, ¶ [0016]: “the detection of defects during the machining process in real time”; ¶ [0048]: “a rectangular detection field 46 of the detector 40 is moved along the weld path 34 with the laser beam 14 in a synchronized manner, as the laser beam 14 is moved with respect to the workpieces”; the examiner interprets the optical sensor recording the weld seam in real time, synchronized with the laser beam as the laser beam traverses the welding contour, as corresponding to the recording being taken when the welding contour is being traversed) when the welding contour (Beck: 22, “weld seam”) is being traversed the third time (Yang, ¶ [0013]; the examiner interprets advancing the laser beam along the third weld path overlapping the first and second weld paths as corresponding to the welding contour being traversed the third time.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haug et al. (US 20240123545), Scheible et al. (US 20240123544), Yasuoka et al. (US 20210178514), Seebach et al. (DE 102019215968), Steffens et al. (DE 102021000237), Hesse et al. (DE 102019210019), Brandner et al. (DE 102020002826), Yang et al. (DE 112015006848), Grimm et al. (DE 102016222475), Steffens et al. (DE 102016011033), Tsukui (DE 102016124924), Kügler et al. (DE 102015115183), Baumann et al. (DE 102015112537), Albert et al. (DE 102014105941), Huber et al. (DE 102010003750), Erhardt et al. (WO 03079464).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights