DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 7, “it” should be revised to: --penetration monitoring laser beam--for sake of clarity and to avoid the use of pronouns such as “it” in the claims.
In claim 16, line 2-4, should be revised as follows to avoid using the term “it” in the claims:
--to receive the reflected penetration monitoring beam that has been reflected from the molten weld pool and then reflected by one, some, or all of the at least one mirror of the common optical system--;
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in line 6 “a connection tab” and “a cell terminal”. However, it is unclear whether these limitations are actually required by the claim, or if the intended use/environment around the laser beam welding system element is merely being described, because the “connection tab” and “cell terminal” have not been positively recited by the claim; they have merely been inferentially introduced therein as part of a description of the intended operation of the system. Claim 1 has only positively recited two limitations, the “welding laser source” and “penetration monitoring laser source”, and the remainder of the claim appears to merely describe how they are intended to be used during a “simultaneous operation”. Based on the instant Specification, the “connection tab” and “cell terminal” are part of a vehicle battery (not recited in the claims), which is merely an article worked upon by the system and not a part of the welding system itself. It is unclear what the applicant intends to encompass as being part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “a receiver”. However, it is unclear whether this limitation is actually required by the claim as part of the system, or if the intended use/environment around the laser beam welding system is merely being described. The claim describes the “penetration monitoring laser beam” being “reflected… to a receiver arranged to receive the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam”, but does not explicitly describe the “receiver” as being a part of the system, but rather inferentially recites the “receiver” as part of a description of the operation of the laser welding system. It is unclear if the “receiver” is part of the “laser welding system” or not.
Claim 9 recites “the laser beam welding system is arranged to perform a calibration operation prior to performing a main welding operation…” followed by a description of the calibration operation in the remainder of the claim. This renders the claim indefinite, as the claim is directed to both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system, or when the steps are actually performed. In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also see MPEP § 2173.05. The claim does not recite any specialized controller that is configured or programmed to perform the “calibration operation”, and merely states the system is “arranged to perform” the recited steps. It is recommended that the claim be amended to either recite a controller configured/programmed to perform the recited steps, or revise the claim to be a method claim.
Claim 10 similarly is directed to both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus, reciting steps of “a main welding operation” having a location of the center of the welding laser beam determined by “a calibration operation”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system, or when the steps are actually performed. In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also see MPEP § 2173.05. The claim does not recite any specialized controller that is configured or programmed to perform the “main welding operation” or “calibration operation”, and seems to only be describing how the system is intended to be used. It is recommended that the claim be amended to either recite a controller configured/programmed to perform the recited steps, or revise the claim to be a method claim.
Claim 11, line 8, recites the limitation “receiving the penetration monitoring laser beam reflected from the molten weld pool”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is “receiving” the penetration monitoring laser beam being reflected, and consequently, what is meant to be encompassed by the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8, 12-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claims 1 & 11, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galbraith (US 2020/0198050 A1, cited in the 09/15/2023 Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding independent claim 1, Galbraith discloses a laser beam welding system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a welding laser source 114 (“process beam source”, Para. 0035); and
a penetration monitoring laser source 124 (“imaging beam source”, Para. 0037),
arranged for simultaneous operation (Para. 0040, “an imaging beam is generated 212 (e.g., using the imaging beam source 124 from the ICI system 120) and directed 213 to the workpiece, for example, together with a process beam”) in a manner such that a penetration monitoring laser beam from the penetration monitoring laser source is incident on a molten weld pool at a process site (at a “keyhole” generated by the process beam which would include molten metal, Para. 0040; Para. 0075, the process site can also be a “melt pool”) comprising an area of contact between a connection tab and a cell terminal (Para. 0070, the system can be used for “a battery tab laser welding process”), the connection tab and cell terminal to be joined by the laser beam welding system (implied by Para. 0070, “a further embodiment of the system and method for monitoring material processing using imaging signal density may be used to monitor a wobble welding process, such as a battery tab laser welding process. This type of process is common in electric mobility (e-mobility) applications such as battery pack assembly and is often used to join conductive metals, including copper and aluminum, in various configurations... Prismatic, pouch, and cylindrical cells are non-limiting examples of battery pack assembly constituents”), and wherein the molten weld pool is created by a welding laser beam emitted by the welding laser source (implicit, Para. 0035, 0071), and the penetration monitoring laser beam being reflected from the molten weld pool to a receiver 129 (“detector”, Para. 0037) arranged to receive the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam and in accordance therewith, output data (an “imaging signal”) indicative of a distance travelled (“depth”) by the penetration monitoring laser beam (to a “monitoring/control system” 130) and therefore the penetration of the welding laser beam at the process site [functional language] (penetration depth measurements can be determined from the imaging signal, Para. 0030, 0033, 0039, 0042, “the interferometry data and the imaging signal density are indicative of at least the depth of the keyhole and the penetration of the keyhole through the workpiece”; Para. 0071-75, “the concept of using imaging signal density to classify A-scans may be used to classify A-scans as pertaining to any aspect of a phase change region or workpiece sub-region. These aspects include, without limitation, …weld penetration depth”).
Regarding the functional language, it has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case, the system of Galbraith is capable of performing the operations described in the claim, based on what is presented in their disclosure as discussed above. Furthermore, the elements of a “battery tab” and “cell terminal” are being interpreted as part of intended use recitations and not part of the laser beam welding system, since they are part of an article/material worked upon by the system (“inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”; see MPEP 2115). Insofar as they are limiting to the claim, Galbraith does discuss using the laser beam welding system for battery tab welding to battery cells in Para. 0070). The recited “receiver” is being interpreted as part of the laser beam welding system since it receives the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam.
Regarding claim 2, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 1, where the laser beam welding system comprises a common optical system 116, 126 (“optics”) comprising at least one mirror (Para. 0035-37, “the optics 116 may also include movable mirrors or other active deflectors or scanning actuators for moving the process beam in the wobble pattern… the ICI system 120 may include directing elements such as movable mirrors (not shown) for directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations within the keyhole or relative to the workpiece”), wherein each of the at least one mirror is arranged to redirect both the welding laser beam and the penetration monitoring laser beam in their paths to the process site (Para. 0031, “The imaging beam may be co-axial with the process beam”).
Regarding claim 3, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 2 where at least one of the at least one mirror of the common optical system comprises an adjustable mirror arranged to be selectively adjustable to alter a position of the process site (Para. 0035-36, “the optics 116 may also include movable mirrors or other active deflectors or scanning actuators for moving the process beam in the wobble pattern”).
Regarding claim 4, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 2 where the common optical system comprises at least one lens wherein each of the at least one lens is arranged to adjust both the welding laser beam and the penetration monitoring laser beam in their paths to the process site (Para. 0035, “The material processing system 110 also includes optics 116, such as collimators and/or lenses, for delivering the process beam 112 to the workpiece 102 to perform material processing”, Para. 0037, “ICI system 120 includes an imaging beam source 124, such as a semi coherent light source, for generating the imaging beam 122 and optics 126, such as collimators and/or lenses, for directing the imaging beam 122 to the workpiece”; Para. 0031, “The imaging beam may be co-axial with the process beam”; hence, there is “at least one” lens delivering the welding and penetration monitoring laser beams to the process site, particularly if the beams are co-axial).
Regarding claim 5, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 2 where the common optical system is arranged to produce a weld path of the welding laser beam which is a continuous loop (Para. 0031, the weld path is a “wobble pattern” that forms continuous looping shapes along the weld line; Para. 0036, “One example of the “wobble” movement may be a reciprocating movement of a laser beam (e.g., in one or more axes) and within a relatively small field of view defined by a scan angle of less than 10° or by a maximum beam angle displacement of less than ±5°. An example of a wobble welding system is described in greater detail in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0368089, which is commonly-owned and fully incorporated herein by reference”).
Regarding claim 6, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 2 where the laser beam welding system comprises a penetration monitoring laser optical system 126 (Fig. 1, part of the “inline coherent imaging system”) in addition to the common optical system 116 and the penetration monitoring laser beam passes through the penetration monitoring laser optical system on its path to the process site (Fig. 1, Para. 0031, 0037, the penetration monitoring laser has its own optics 126 upstream of the material processing system optics/common optical system 116 that would direct the co-axial laser beams to the processing site).
Regarding claim 7, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 6 where the laser beam welding system is arranged to operate the penetration monitoring laser optical system 126 such that a center of the penetration monitoring laser beam incident on the process site (Fig. 1) [functional language]:
follows a similar path shape to that of a center of the welding laser beam incident on the process site as the process site is adjusted in a continuous welding operation [functional language] (Para. 0031, “The imaging beam may be co-axial with the process beam”; if the beams are co-axial, the penetration monitoring laser beam would naturally follow the same path shape as that of the welding laser beam); or
has a positional offset with respect to the center of the welding laser beam incident on the process site as the process site is adjusted in a continuous curved welding operation [functional language] (Para. 0031, “The imaging beam may be …may be offset or angled relative to the process beam”).
Regarding the functional language, it has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case, the system of Galbraith is capable of performing the operation as described in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Galbraith the laser beam welding system according to claim 6 where the penetration monitoring laser optical system 126 is arranged to allow selective adjustment to a field of view of the penetration monitoring laser beam [functional language] ((Para. 0037, “The ICI system 120 includes an imaging beam source 124, such as a semi coherent light source, for generating the imaging beam 122 and optics 126, such as collimators and/or lenses, for directing the imaging beam 122 to the workpiece…the ICI system 120 may include directing elements such as movable mirrors (not shown) for directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations within the keyhole or relative to the workpiece”; the optics 126 having collimators and lenses and “movable mirrors” would naturally “allow” for selective adjustment to the laser beam field of view, for instance by “directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations” on the workpiece; note, the claim does not explicitly state in what way the “field of view” is adjusted, or in what manner the penetration monitoring laser optical system “allows” for the selective adjustment, hence the claim can be interpreted very broadly).
Furthermore, it has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case the system of Galbraith is capable of “allowing” selective adjustment of the field of view, by having an optical system with collimators and/or lenses, and movable mirrors.
Regarding claim 9, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 8 where the laser beam welding system is arranged to perform a calibration operation prior to performing a main welding operation, wherein in the calibration operation the welding laser source and penetration monitoring laser source are operated simultaneously with the welding laser beam producing the molten weld pool at the process site and the penetration monitoring laser beam initially operating with a first field of view which is wider than a second field of view with which it operates subsequently within the calibration operation, the data from the receiver while the penetration monitoring laser beam operates with the first field of view being used to determine a location within the process site in which the molten weld pool is located in accordance with a spatial distribution of distance travelled by different parts of the penetration monitoring laser beam, adjusting the penetration monitoring laser optical system to locate a centre of the penetration monitoring laser beam incident on the process site at a position relative to a centre of the welding laser beam incident on the process site such that the penetration monitoring laser beam is substantially at a centre of the molten weld pool and reducing the field of view of the penetration monitoring laser beam to the second field of view [functional language].
Regarding the functional language, it has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114, II. In this case, the “calibration operation” described is interpreted as an intended use of the system, which does not impart any structural differences from the prior art. The system of Galbraith is capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding claim 10, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 7 where a main welding operation comprises a continuous welding operation performed with a location of the center of the penetration monitoring laser beam incident on the process site fixed with respect to a location of the center of the welding laser beam incident on the process site in accordance with a relative position determined in a calibration operation [functional language].
Regarding the functional language, it has been held that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114, II. In this case, the “main welding operation” and “calibration operation” described is interpreted as an intended use of the system, which does not impart any structural differences from the prior art. The system of Galbraith is capable of performing the recited function.
Regarding independent claim 11, Galbraith discloses a laser beam welding method comprising:
a) simultaneously operating a welding laser source 114 (“process beam source”, Para. 0035) and a penetration monitoring laser source 124 (“imaging beam source”, Para. 0037) in a manner such that a penetration monitoring laser beam 122 from the penetration monitoring laser source is incident on a molten weld pool at a process site (Para. 0040, “an imaging beam is generated 212 (e.g., using the imaging beam source 124 from the ICI system 120) and directed 213 to the workpiece, for example, together with a process beam”; process site forms a “keyhole” generated by the process beam which would include molten metal, Para. 0040; Para. 0075, the process site can also be a “melt pool”) comprising an area of contact between a connection tab and a cell terminal (Para. 0070, the system can be used for “a battery tab laser welding process”), the connection tab and cell terminal to be joined by the laser beam welding method (implied by Para. 0070, “a further embodiment of the system and method for monitoring material processing using imaging signal density may be used to monitor a wobble welding process, such as a battery tab laser welding process. This type of process is common in electric mobility (e-mobility) applications such as battery pack assembly and is often used to join conductive metals, including copper and aluminum, in various configurations... Prismatic, pouch, and cylindrical cells are non-limiting examples of battery pack assembly constituents”), the molten weld pool being created by a welding laser beam 112 from the welding laser source (Para. 0035, 0040, 0071);
b) receiving the penetration monitoring laser beam reflected from the molten weld pool (receiving with “detector 129”, Para. 0037); and
c) outputting (to a “monitoring/control system” 130) in accordance with the received penetration monitoring laser beam, data (an “imaging signal”) indicative of a distance (“depth”) travelled by the penetration monitoring laser beam and therefore the penetration of the welding laser beam at the process site (penetration depth measurements can be determined from the imaging signal, Para. 0030, 0033, 0039, 0042, “the interferometry data and the imaging signal density are indicative of at least the depth of the keyhole and the penetration of the keyhole through the workpiece”; Para. 0071-75, “the concept of using imaging signal density to classify A-scans may be used to classify A-scans as pertaining to any aspect of a phase change region or workpiece sub-region. These aspects include, without limitation, …weld penetration depth”).
Regarding claim 12, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding method according to claim 11 comprising redirecting both the welding laser beam 112 and the penetration monitoring laser beam 122 in their paths to the process site using each of at least one mirror of a common optical system 116, 126 (Fig. 1, Para. 0031, “The imaging beam may be co-axial with the process beam”; Para. 0035-37, “the optics 116 may also include movable mirrors or other active deflectors or scanning actuators for moving the process beam in the wobble pattern… the ICI system 120 may include directing elements such as movable mirrors (not shown) for directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations within the keyhole or relative to the workpiece”).
Regarding claim 13, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding method according to claim 12 comprising adjusting a position of the penetration monitoring laser beam 122 at the process site independently of positioning of the process site as defined by the welding laser beam 112, using a penetration monitoring laser optical system 126 provided in addition to the common optical system 116 (Para. 0037, “the ICI system 120 may include directing elements such as movable mirrors (not shown) for directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations within the keyhole or relative to the workpiece”; the optical system 126 is separate from and can operate independently of the optical system 116 of the welding laser beam 112);
optionally [interpreted as not being required] the laser beam welding method further comprising performing a calibration operation prior to performing a main welding operation, wherein the calibration operation comprises: a) simultaneously operating the welding laser source and penetration monitoring laser source with the penetration monitoring laser source initially having a first field of view which is wider than a second field of view with which it is operated subsequently within the calibration operation and the welding laser source producing the molten weld pool at the process site; b) determining a location within the process site in which the molten weld pool is located in accordance with a spatial distribution of distance travelled by different parts of the penetration monitoring laser source beam using the received penetration monitoring laser beam while it is operated with the first field of view; c) adjusting the penetration monitoring laser optical system to locate a centre of the penetration monitoring laser beam incident on the process site at a position relative to a centre of the welding laser beam incident on the process site such that the penetration monitoring laser beam is substantially at a centre of the molten weld pool; and d) reducing a field of view of the penetration monitoring laser beam to the second field of view (note, since the claim is stating the calibration operation steps a)-d) are “optional” they are interpreted as not being required by the claim; insofar as the optional steps could be considered limiting, Kanko US 2017/0120337 A1 , cited in the information disclosure statement filed 09/15/2023, appears to teach a calibration operation for an inline coherent imaging system similar to that of Galbraith; if applicant intends for the calibration operation to be explicitly required, it is recommended that the term “optionally” be deleted).
Regarding claim 14, Galbraith discloses a controller 130 arranged to perform the laser beam welding method of claim 11 (Para. 0034, “a monitoring/control system 130 receives the ICI data from the ICI system 120 and determines the ICI imaging signal density as well as other measurements for purposes of monitoring and/or controlling the material processing”; Para. 0039, “The monitoring/control system 130 may also control the material processing in response to analog or digital feedback (i.e., direct data output) including the ICI imaging signal density”).
Regarding claim 15, Galbraith discloses a computer program stored in a non-transitory storage medium that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the laser beam welding method as claimed in claim 11 (Para. 0039, “The monitoring/control system 130 includes hardware (e.g., a general purpose computer) and software programmed to at least calculate the imaging signal density and other measurements from the ICI data. The monitoring/control system 130 may also record the raw ICI data and the calculated imaging signal density as well as other measurements. The monitoring/control system 130 may further monitor the process and/or workpiece during processing. The monitoring/control system 130 may monitor the ICI imaging signal density to determine characteristics of the process and/or material for purposes of inspection or quality assurance (e.g., pass/fail). The monitoring/control system 130 may also control the material processing in response to analog or digital feedback (i.e., direct data output) including the ICI imaging signal density”; Para. 0107, “a computer readable storage medium that contains computer readable instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor (or a device containing the processor) to perform the imaging signal density calculations consistent with the present disclosure”).
Regarding claim 18, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 5, where the common optical system is arranged to produce oscillations about the weld path (Para. 0036, the weld path is a “wobble pattern”), wherein the oscillations comprise a first component in a direction parallel to the weld path and a second component in a direction normal to the weld path (Para. 0036, the “wobble” is formed by a reciprocating movement of the laser beam in one or more axes within a small field of view; the prior art incorporated by reference Grapov US 2016/0368089 A1 cited by Galbraith discloses examples of the wobble pattern weld path in Fig. 2A-2D, which shows the “oscillations” being normal to the weld path direction).
Regarding claim 19, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 6 where the penetration monitoring laser optical system 126 is arranged to allow selective positional adjustment of the penetration monitoring laser beam 122 at the process site (i.e. the “keyhole”) independently of positioning of the process site as defined by the welding laser beam (Para. 0037, “the ICI system 120 may include directing elements such as movable mirrors (not shown) for directing the imaging beam 122 to different locations within the keyhole or relative to the workpiece”; the optical system 126 is separate from and can operate independently of the optical system 116 of the welding laser beam 112).
Regarding claim 20, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding method according to claim 12, further comprising adjusting at least one of the at least one mirror of the common optical system 116 to alter a position of the process site (Para. 0035-37, “the optics 116 may also include movable mirrors or other active deflectors or scanning actuators for moving the process beam in the wobble pattern”).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbraith in view of Sakai (US 2020/0376592 A1, cited in the information disclosure statement filed 09/15/2023).
Regarding claim 16, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly disclose where the receiver is arranged to receive the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam with it having been reflected from the molten weld pool and then reflected by the one, some or all of the at least one mirror of the common optical system.
Sakai teaches a laser beam welding system having a welding laser beam source 11 and a penetration monitoring laser beam source 13 (Fig. 1), wherein a receiver 14 (“measuring instrument”) is configured to receive a reflected penetration monitoring laser beam S from a workpiece to help identify a depth of the molten weld spot 35 (Para. 0071), the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam having been reflected from the molten weld spot 35 and then reflected by the one, some or all of the at least one mirror of a common optical system 20 (Fig. 2, Para. 0070-71, reflected off mirrors 26 & 27, and beamsplitter 25 that are used by both the welding laser beam L and the monitoring laser beam S).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Galbraith, the reflected penetration monitoring laser beam being reflected by one or more or all of common optical system mirrors before being received by the receiver, as taught by Sakai, in order to utilize the same mirrors reflecting the laser beams to the workpiece to reflect the monitoring beam back to the receiver of the penetration monitoring system, the arrangement of mirrors and other optical devices allowing the monitoring laser beam to originate from a location separate from the welding laser beam (Sakai Para. 0061-66; 0070-72). Note, that an arrangement of common optical elements for transmitting and reflecting monitoring laser beams to and from a workpiece welding spot is well-known in the art of laser welding systems (see for example: Chida US 2014/0224780 A1; Schönleber US 2016/0202045 A1; Sakurai US 2021/0023651 A1).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbraith in view of Schönleber (US 2016/0202045 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Galbraith discloses the laser beam welding system according to claim 4, but fails to disclose where at least one of the at least one lens of the common optical system comprises an adjustable lens arranged to be selectively adjustable to alter a position of the process site.
Schönleber teaches a laser beam welding system (Fig. 2) including a welding laser beam source 18 (Para. 0053) and a penetration monitoring laser beam source 42 (Para. 0055), and a common optical system for adjusting the welding laser beam and penetration monitoring laser beam (Fig. 2, see the mirror 30, and lens 32; Para. 0054, 0059, the lens 32 is common to both the lasers), where at least one of the at least one lens 32 of the common optical system comprises an adjustable lens 32 (“a focusing optical unit 32”) arranged to be selectively adjustable to alter a position of the process site (Para. 0054, “The collimated laser beam 19 is then deflected by 90° by a dichroic mirror 30 and impinges on a focusing optical unit 32, the focal length of which can be varied by axially shifting one or more lenses with the aid of a positioning drive 34. In this way, the axial location of the focal spot 22 can be varied by adjusting the focusing optical unit 32”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Galbraith, the common optical system having an adjustable lens, as taught by Schönleber, in order to allow adjustment of the axial location of the laser beam focal point (Schönleber Para. 0054, 0059).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure for disclosing arrangements of welding and monitoring laser beams for welding components and measuring penetration depth of the welding laser beam on the workpiece according to the state of the art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights