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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase "a method as claimed in claim 1" should be changed to "the method as claimed in claim 1" as antecedent basis has been established.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US 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.)
the components each having an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight, (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, so 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.”)
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, with a mean power density in the core portion being higher than a mean power density in the ring portion.
Martinsen discloses 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, (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.)
with a mean power density in the core portion being higher than a mean power density in the ring portion. (Martinsen, [0006] “In some examples of the device, the selected output intensity profile is Gaussian, super-Gaussian, flat-top, saddle-shaped, or donut-shaped”; Fig. 7A-7C depict the gaussian intensity profile having most of the power intensity in a center confinement region 216 and some power intensity in the annular confinement region 218, further explained in Martinsen [0092] as 90% of the power density confined to region 216 and 100% of power density confined to regions 216 and 218; Fig. 2 and [0082] “Layers 222 and 224 are structural barriers of lower index material between confinement regions (216, 218 and 220), commonly referred to as “cladding” regions”; and [0118] describes the second fiber having the ability to further alter or maintain beam characteristics using multiple cores forming confinement zones.)
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 2. 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 3. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the at least two components are welded to one another by partial penetration welding with a lap joint, and (Kayahara, Fig. 6A and 6B show the resulting welding bead of the workpiece after being lap-welded.)
the partial penetration welding takes place to at least 10% of a component thickness of a lower component of the lap joint. (Kayahara, Fig. 6A shows the weld bead W3 extending down into the lower component W1; and [0052] The power distribution profile of at least the main beam B1 is preferably sharp to some degree. When the power distribution profile of the main beam B1 is sharp to some degree, the depth melted is able to be increased in melting of the workpiece W, and welding strength is thus able to be attained and generation of welding defects is thus able to be reduced more ideally.)
Although Kayahara’s figure in 6A does not explicitly disclose the percentage of the lower component thickness the weld penetrates, Kayahara teaches a sharper power distribution profile of the main beam B1 leads to an increase in melting depth which directly affect welding strength, establishing the weld penetration depth as a result effective variable. 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 weld depth of the beam to penetrate the workpiece as taught in Kayahara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the weld strength needed for the welding process since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 4. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least two components are welded to one another by partial penetration welding with a butt joint. (Kayahara, [0094] “The workpiece W20 has two aluminum members W21 and W22 that are sheet-shaped and placed adjacently to butt against each other… The laser welding apparatus 300 implements welding by principles that are similar to those of the laser welding apparatuses 100 and 200.”)
Claim 5. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a common vapor capillary of all of the multiple laser spots surrounded by a common melt pool is formed in the components. (Kayahara, [0007] “… temperature inside a keyhole formed in the workpiece is reduced such that… generation of the metal vapor is reduced to an acceptable degree; and a melted width is increased.)
Claim 6. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multiple laser spots form an arrangement that exhibits rotational symmetry with an order corresponding to a number of laser spots of the ring formation. (Kayahara, Fig. 3A shows the arrangement of the auxiliary beams with rotational symmetry.)
Claim 9. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the ring formation is formed by exactly five laser spots, (Kayahara, [0086] “In an example illustrated in FIG. 13D, laser light L34 includes a main beam B1 and five auxiliary beams B2. The five auxiliary beams B2 are positioned to form an approximate ring shape or pentagonal shape, with the main beam B1 in the center.”)
wherein the welding contour extends such that, during the laser welding and at least predominantly with respect to a local advancement direction, one laser spot of the ring formation is a leading laser spot, two laser spots of the ring formation are arranged in a middle with a first same position with respect to the local advancement direction, and two other laser spots of the ring formation are trailing laser spots having a second same position with respect to the local advancement direction. (Kayahara, Fig. 13D shows the five laser spots where, in an upward sweep direction SD similar to the direction exemplified in Fig. 3A, the first laser spot is leading at the front, two laser spots have the same vertical position in the middle, and the remaining two laser spots have the same vertical position and are trailing at the back relative to the sweep direction SD.)
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 beam deflection of the embodiment with eight laser spots of Kayahara with the five laser spot embodiment of Kayahara exemplified in Fig. 13D. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to have more granular control over the beam profile during welding (see Kayahara, [0087]).
Claim 10. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ring portions of the laser spots that are adjacent in the ring formation are arranged touching one another. (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously.”)
Since each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 in the ring formation of the laser welding system of Kayahara may be made of the multifiber taught in Martinsen reflected by the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara, each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 may be modified to have their ring portions touching or overlapping one another.
Claim 11. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ring portions of the laser spots that are adjacent in the ring formation are arranged overlapping one another, (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously.”)
Since each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 in the ring formation of the laser welding system of Kayahara may be made of the multifiber taught in Martinsen reflected by the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara, each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 may be modified to have their ring portions touching or overlapping one another.
with the core portions of the laser spots of the ring formation not overlapping with the ring portions of the laser spots that are adjacent in the ring formation. (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously”; and [0053] explains that the beam diameters may be modified through setting specifics of the laser device 110, optical head 120, and optical fiber 130 used.)
Although Kayahara does not explicitly disclose only the edges of the auxiliary beams overlapping with only the edges of the auxiliary beams adjacent to it, it teaches that the beam diameters may be modified through setting specifics of the laser device 110, optical head 120, and optical fiber 130 used in paragraph [0053]. Additionally, Martinsen teaches methods to modify beam propagation through two fibers in order to control intensity on the welding area using multicore fibers with differing refractive index profiles (see Martinsen, [0095]). This establishes beam overlap and size are result effective variables that affect beam intensity. 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 beam formation of Kayahara with a sufficient degree of overlap as taught by combined Kayahara and Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the temperature inside the keyhole formed in the workpiece in the central region of the weld area is reduced or optimized, leading to increased melted width (see Kayahara, [0007]) and control of the vapor of the component metal in a keyhole generated, lessening the generation of blowholes that are detrimental to the strength of the workpiece (see Kayahara, [0122]) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein, at any location, at most two ring portions of the laser spots of the ring formation overlap one another. (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously”; [0051] “If the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the total power of the eight auxiliary beams B2 is 0:10, the main beam B1 does not exist in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B.”)
Although Kayahara does not explicitly disclose the auxiliary beams only overlapping with the auxiliary beams adjacent to it, leading to only two ring portions of the ring formation overlapping one another as claimed, it teaches a main beam B1 and plural auxiliary beams B2 power ratio of 0:10 where the main beam is effectively nonexistent in paragraph [0051] and that the beam diameters may be modified through setting specifics of the laser device 110, optical head 120, and optical fiber 130 used in paragraph [0053]. Additionally, Martinsen teaches methods to modify beam propagation through two fibers in order to control intensity on the welding area using multicore fibers with differing refractive index profiles. This establishes beam overlap and size are result effective variables that affect beam intensity. 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 beam formation of Kayahara with a sufficient degree of overlap as taught by combined Kayahara and Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the temperature inside the keyhole formed in the workpiece in the central region of the weld area is reduced or optimized, leading to increased melted width (see Kayahara, [0007]) and control of the vapor of the component metal in a keyhole generated, lessening the generation of blowholes that are detrimental to the strength of the workpiece (see Kayahara, [0122]) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 13. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 11,
wherein the laser spots of the ring formation comprise a common center, (Kayahara, Fig 3A shows auxiliary beams B2 have a common center which is the center of main beam B1.)
at which the ring portions of the laser spots of the ring formation touch one another, (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously.”)
Since each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 in the ring formation of the laser welding system of Kayahara may be made of the multifiber taught in Martinsen reflected by the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara, each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 may be modified to have their ring portions touching or overlapping one another. 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 ring formation of the laser welding system to have overlapping laser spots in order to form a more symmetrical shape to enable the laser light to have a sweep direction in any direction (see Kayahara, [0056]).
with exactly four laser spots being arranged in the ring formation. (Kayahara, Fig. 11 and 12 show embodiments where the laser light L1 is split into four laser spots to 16 laser spots, a range that encompasses the claimed four laser spots; and Martinsen, Fig. 27 shows a multicore fiber 2700 with four laser spots in particular forming a ring.)
Although the first embodiment of Kayahara does not explicitly disclose exactly four laser spots, the laser fiber may be modified to have at least 16 laser spots forming a ring shape compared to the first embodiment shown in Fig. 3A. Furthermore, paragraph [0082] describes the modification of the angle θ formed between lines joining the center of the main beam B1 to the centers of the adjacent auxiliary beams B2. Kayahara also teaches a power ratio between B1 and the auxiliary beams B2 as 0:10 wherein the main beam is completely absent (see Kayahara, [0051]). The auxiliary beams positioned with a 90° between them is a similar formation to the symmetrical multicore fiber 2700 in Fig. 27 taught by Martinsen which has exactly four cores forming the ring formation portion. 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 multifiber of the welding system of combined Kayahara and Martinsen to have a multifiber with a four laser spot ring arrangement as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification since the applicant has not disclosed that exactly four laser spots solves any problem or is preferred for a particular reason and it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with exactly four laser spots.
Claim 14. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein, in a central region, (Kayahara, Fig 3A shows auxiliary beams B2 have a common center which is the center of main beam B1.)
the ring portions of all the laser spots of the ring formation overlap one another, (Kayahara, [0047] “Furthermore, like laser light L′ illustrated in FIG. 3B, plural auxiliary beams B2 may form a ring shape by overlapping each other continuously”; [0051] “If the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the total power of the eight auxiliary beams B2 is 0:10, the main beam B1 does not exist in FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B”; and [0053] explains that the beam diameters may be modified through setting specifics of the laser device 110, optical head 120, and optical fiber 130 used.)
Since each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 in the ring formation of the laser welding system of Kayahara may be made of the multifiber taught in Martinsen reflected by the diffractive optical element 123 of Kayahara, each overlapping laser spot of the auxiliary beam B2 may be modified to have their ring portions touching or overlapping one another.
with exactly three laser spots being arranged in the ring formation. (Kayahara, Fig. 11 shows three auxiliary beam B2 laser spots arranged around the main beam B1 in a partial ring formation.)
Although the first embodiment of Kayahara does not explicitly disclose exactly three laser spots in a ring formation, the laser fiber may be modified to have at least 16 laser spots forming a ring shape compared to the first embodiment shown in Fig. 3A. Furthermore, paragraph [0082] describes the modification of the angle θ formed between lines joining the center of the main beam B1 to the centers of the adjacent auxiliary beams B2. Kayahara also teaches a power ratio between B1 and the auxiliary beams B2 as 0:10 wherein the main beam is completely absent (see Kayahara, [0051]). 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 multifiber of the welding system of combined Kayahara and Martinsen to have a multifiber with a three laser spot ring arrangement as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification since the applicant has not disclosed that exactly three laser spots solves any problem or is preferred for a particular reason and it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with exactly three laser spots.
Claim 15. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein for a diameter DK of the core portion and a diameter DR of the ring portion, it holds true that: 2≤DR/DK≤10, and (Martinsen, Fig. 5 and [0091] “… confinement region 216 has a 100 micron diameter, confinement region 218 is between 120 micron and 200 micron in diameter…”)
wherein, for a power proportion LK of the core portion in relation to an overall power in a respective laser spot, it holds true that: 10%≤LK≤90%. (Martinsen, Fig. 5 “When VBC fiber 200 is straight (e.g., unperturbed), about 90% of the power is contained within the central confinement region 216, and about 100% of the power is contained within confinement regions 216 and 218” where the central confinement region corresponds with the claimed core portion.)
Claim 16. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 15,
wherein it holds true that 2.5≤DR/DK≤6, and (Martinsen, Fig. 5 and [0091] “… confinement region 216 has a 100 micron diameter, confinement region 218 is between 120 micron and 200 micron in diameter… Other inner and outer diameters for the confinement regions, thicknesses of the rings separating the confinement regions, NA values for the confinement regions, and numbers of confinement regions may be employed.”)
30%≤LK≤70%. (Martinsen, [0098] “In some embodiments, it may be desirable to have optical power of adjusted optical beam 226 divided among confinement regions 216, 218, and/or 220 rather than have it concentrated in a single region. In other words, particular confinement regions need not be exclusively excited. For example, as the bend radius is decreased, the intensity distribution at the input shifts to the larger diameters of confinement regions 218 and 220 located farther away from confinement region 216.”)
Although Martinsen does not explicitly disclose a ring/center diameter ratio between 2.5 and 6, Martinsen teaches that other outer diameters for confinement regions may be employed. Similarly, although Martinsen does not explicitly disclose a power proportion of the core portion as between 30% to 70%, it teaches that the bend radius may be decreased to modify the normally gaussian distribution of an unperturbed beam to preferentially occupy the outer confinement regions 218 and 220. 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 perturbation of the beam through the fiber as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the intensity distribution of the beam since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 17. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 15,
wherein it holds true that 3.5≤DR/DK≤5, and (Martinsen, Fig. 5 and [0091] “… confinement region 216 has a 100 micron diameter, confinement region 218 is between 120 micron and 200 micron in diameter… Other inner and outer diameters for the confinement regions, thicknesses of the rings separating the confinement regions, NA values for the confinement regions, and numbers of confinement regions may be employed.”)
40%≤LK≤60%. (Martinsen, [0098] “In some embodiments, it may be desirable to have optical power of adjusted optical beam 226 divided among confinement regions 216, 218, and/or 220 rather than have it concentrated in a single region. In other words, particular confinement regions need not be exclusively excited. For example, as the bend radius is decreased, the intensity distribution at the input shifts to the larger diameters of confinement regions 218 and 220 located farther away from confinement region 216.”)
Although Martinsen does not explicitly disclose a ring/center diameter ratio between 3.5 and 5, Martinsen teaches that other outer diameters for confinement regions may be employed. Similarly, although Martinsen does not explicitly disclose a power proportion of the core portion as between 40% to 60%, it teaches that the bend radius may be decreased to modify the normally gaussian distribution of an unperturbed beam to preferentially occupy the outer confinement regions 218 and 220. 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 perturbation of the beam through the fiber as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to optimize the intensity distribution of the beam since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 18. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the components have a component thickness BD, where 0.5mm≤BD≤5.0 mm, and/or the components are made from aluminum materials of the 3000, 5000 or 6000 series, and/or the core portions of the laser spots have a diameter DK, where 11µm≤DK≤200µm, and (Kayahara, [0041] “The aluminum members W1 and W2 are each sheet-shaped or plate-shaped and each have a thickness of about 1 mm to 10 mm…”; [0041] “Examples of the aluminum members W1 and W2 include:… 3003 that is an Al—Mn alloy;… 5052 and 5056 that are Al—Mg alloys; 6061 and 6063 that are Al—Mg—Si alloys…”; and Martinsen, [0091] “… confinement region 216 has a 100 micron diameter…”)
the ring portions of the laser spots have a diameter DR, where 50µm≤DR≤700µm. (Martinsen, [0091] “… confinement region 216 has a 100 micron diameter, confinement region 218 is between 120 micron and 200 micron in diameter…”)
Claim 19. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein a mean laser power P of the output laser beam is applied, where P≥2kW, and/or a welding speed SG is applied, where SG≥5m/min. (Kayahara, [0059] “The workpieces W were lap-welded under conditions where the sweep speed of laser light for the workpieces was changed between 8.3 mm/sec to 300 mm/sec and the laser output was changed between 3 kW and 11 kW.”)
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US 20180217410 A1, in further view of Tsukui, US Patent Application Publication No. 10414000 B2.
Claim 7. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 1,
Modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose wherein the ring formation is formed by exactly four laser spots.
wherein the ring formation is formed by exactly four laser spots. (Tsukui, Fig. 25 shows a variation of the irradiation pattern shown in Fig. 5, where the diffractive optical element 130 creates four outer edge spots and a central region A1 is absent.)
Although the first embodiment of Kayahara does not explicitly disclose exactly four laser spots, the laser fiber may be modified to have at least 16 laser spots forming a ring shape compared to the first embodiment shown in Fig. 3A. Furthermore, paragraph [0082] describes the modification of the angle θ formed between lines joining the center of the main beam B1 to the centers of the adjacent auxiliary beams B2. Kayahara also teaches a power ratio between B1 and the auxiliary beams B2 as 0:10 wherein the main beam is completely absent (see Kayahara, [0051]). Similarly, Tsukui teaches a variant irradiation pattern sing a diffractive optical element with an absent central spot. 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 diffractive optical element of the welding system of combined Kayahara and Martinsen to diffract the laser input into a four laser spot ring arrangement using the methods taught in Tsukui. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification since the applicant has not disclosed that exactly four laser spots solves any problem or is preferred for a particular reason and it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with exactly four laser spots.
Claim 8. Modified Kayahara discloses the method as claimed in claim 7,
wherein the welding contour extends such that, during the laser welding and at least predominantly with respect to a local advancement direction, two laser spots of the ring formation are leading laser spots having a first same position with respect to the local advancement direction, and two other laser spots of the ring formation are trailing laser spots having a second same position with respect to the local advancement direction. (Kayahara, [0046] “… the diffractive optical element 123 splits the laser light such that at least some of the plural auxiliary beams are positioned in front, in a sweep direction, of the main beam”; Kayahara, [0048] “In the example illustrated in FIG. 3A, three auxiliary beams B2 are positioned in front, in a sweep direction SD, of the main beam B1… Three auxiliary beams B2 are positioned in back, in the sweep direction SD, of the main beam B1”.)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara et al., WO 2020246618 A1 as translated by US 20220088703 A1, in view of Martinsen et al., US 20180217410 A1, in further view of Fochtman et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 20080264389 A1.
Claim 20. Modified Kayahara discloses by a method as claimed in claim 1,
Modified Kayahara does not explicitly disclose a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components [by a method claimed in claim 1], the component arrangement being impermeable to a cooling liquid, at the welded welding contour.
Fochtman discloses a component arrangement produced by welding at least two components [by a method claimed in claim 1], the component arrangement being impermeable to a cooling liquid, 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, 2 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18391699 (reference application) 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.
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,
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.
Claim 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multifiber comprises a 2-in-1 fiber.
Claim 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.
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 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 13. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the multifiber comprises a 2-in-1 fiber.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the reference claims does not explicitly disclose with a mean power density in the core portion being higher than a mean power density in the ring portion.
However, Martinsen discloses with a mean power density in the core portion being higher than a mean power density in the ring portion. (Martinsen, [0006] “In some examples of the device, the selected output intensity profile is Gaussian, super-Gaussian, flat-top, saddle-shaped, or donut-shaped”; Fig. 7A-7C depict the gaussian intensity profile having most of the power intensity in a center confinement region 216 and some power intensity in the annular confinement region 218, further explained in Martinsen [0092] as 90% of the power density confined to region 216 and 100% of power density confined to regions 216 and 218; Fig. 2 and [0082] “Layers 222 and 224 are structural barriers of lower index material between confinement regions (216, 218 and 220), commonly referred to as “cladding” regions”; and [0118] describes the second fiber having the ability to further alter or maintain beam characteristics using multiple cores forming confinement zones.)
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 intensity of the deflected beam to preferentially have a higher intensity in the core region as taught by Martinsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because varying the intensity distribution enables variation of the beam profile at the workpiece in order to tune and/or optimize the process, as desired.
Regarding claim 20, the reference claims does not explicitly disclose [the component arrangement being impermeable to] a cooling liquid.
However, Fochtman discloses [the component arrangement being impermeable to] a cooling liquid. (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.”)
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 11 of copending Application No. 18393748 (reference application) 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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Victor et al., US 20180185965 A1 directed to a vapor cavity surrounded by a melt pool created during welding..
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