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 .
Specification
The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2022/060493 and of the German patent application DE 10 2021 115 494.4 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 4/21/2022, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 12/11/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. In particular, the phrase “In order to improve the production of bipolar plates (2)” characterizes an advantage of the invention rather than describing its technical disclosure. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “the welded bond between the two individual plates (3)” in lines 3-4, which should read “... the two individual plates (6).” The reference character “3” is inconsistent; “3” is defined in claim 1 as a processing station, while individual plates are consistently designated “6” elsewhere in this same claim.
Claim 2 recites “is at least one of created symmetrically or provides for a symmetrical introduction of heat” in lines 4-5, lacking grammatical parallelism between “created” and “provides”. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “provides” as “provided”.
Claim 2 recites “the welded bond between two individual plates” in lines 5-6, which should be fixed to read “the welded bond between the two individual plates.”
Claim 4 recites “a first part of the welded bond connecting the two individual plates (6)” and later in the same claim, “a second part of the welded bond connecting the individual plates (6),” inconsistently including “two” in the first instance and omitting it in the second. For consistency, the second instance should read “connecting the two individual plates (6).”
Claim 6 recites “at least one of a) check a position of the welded bond created using the two laser scanners or b) control the two laser scanners, c) match scanning fields of the two laser scanners, or d) offset scanning fields of the two laser scanners,” improperly placing the disjunctive “or” after item “a)” rather than solely before the final item in the series. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “at least one of a) check a position of the welded bond created using the two laser scanners, b) control the two laser scanners, c) match scanning fields of the two laser scanners, or d) offset scanning fields of the two laser scanners.”
Claim 7 recites “at least one of a) the at least one processing station (3, 4), b) a charging station (10), or c) a removing station (11) are connected to one another for conveying,” which is internally inconsistent, as the “at least one of” singular-selection language conflicts with “connected to one another,” which presupposes a plurality of elements.” For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation, consistent with ¶ [0019] of the specification, as reciting “a conveying device (9) via which two or more of a) the at least one processing station (3, 4), b) a charging station (10), and c) a removing station (11) are connected to one another for conveying.”
Claim 10 recites “has a workpiece receptacle (13), assigned at least temporarily to the head tool (15), the floor tool (12) is centerable,” containing a comma splice. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “has a workpiece receptacle (13), assigned at least temporarily to the head tool (15), and the floor tool (12) is centerable.”
Claim 11 recites “moveable” in line 2, which should read “movable”.
Claim 13 recites “an interchangeable holder (17) for at least one of the at least one head tool (15) or for at least one floor tool (12).” Claim 12, from which claim 13 depends, introduces these elements in the singular as “a head tool (15)” and “a floor tool (12).” The “at least one” qualifier before “head tool” and “floor tool” in claim 13 is therefore unsupported by proper antecedent basis and should be deleted. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation as “an interchangeable holder (17) for at least one of the head tool (15) or the floor tool (12).”
Claim 18 recites “at least one of the at least one head tool (15) or the at least one floor tool (12) are designed,” which should read “at least one of the head tool (15) or the floor tool (12) is designed,” both to remove the unsupported “at least one” qualifiers, and to avoid a subject-verb agreement error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control unit” in claim 2;
“conveying device” in claim 7;
“protective gassing device” in claim 14; and
“handling device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “control unit” in claim 2, the recited function is activating the two laser scanners so that the welded bond is at least one of created symmetrically or provided for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates. “Unit” is a non-structural generic placeholder, and no structural limitation for the control unit is recited in claim 2. The specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for performing this function; ¶ [0011] states only that the control unit “can be integrated into one of the laser scanners and/or connected to the laser scanners,” without describing any circuit, processor, or control scheme. Claim 2 is therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Regarding the term “conveying device” in claim 7, the recited function is connecting two or more of the at least one processing station, the charging station, and the removing station to one another for conveying. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a rotary indexing table described in ¶ [0019], and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “protective gassing device” in claim 14, the recited function is providing a workspace of the at least one processing station with a protective gas atmosphere. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a protective gas outlet provided on the head tool and/or floor tool, via which protective gas is introduced into the workspace, described in ¶¶ [0032] and [0057]-[0058], and equivalent thereof.
Regarding the term “handling device” in claim 15, the recited function is charging the device with the individual plates or removing the bipolar plates. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is a swivel-arm robot and suction gripper described in ¶ [0034], and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 2, 8 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term “control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above, as reciting the function of activating the two laser scanners so that the welded bond is at least one of created symmetrically or provided for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates. The specification, at ¶ [0011], discloses only that the control unit “can be integrated into one of the laser scanners and/or connected to the laser scanners,” without disclosing any structure, such as a circuit, processor, or control scheme, for performing the recited function. Because the specification fails to disclose corresponding structure for the recited function, claim 2 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “a floor tool (12)... for each station (3, 4, 10, 11) of the device (1).” Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which recites only “at least one processing station (3, 4)”; the claimed “each station” implies a plurality of stations. Although the presence or absence of reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim (MPEP 608.01(m)), in this instance the reference characters (3,4,10,11) imply that these stations have already been introduced within the claim scope. However, neither a charging station (10) nor a removing station (11) has been introduced in claim 8 or in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends. It is therefore unclear what “each station” refers to, and how many stations, of what types, the device is required to have, rendering the scope of claim 8 indefinite. For purpose of examination, the examiner interprets “each station (3, 4, 10, 11)” as requiring a floor tool for each station of the device actually present in a given embodiment.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “at least two of the floor tools (12).” Claim 11 depends from claim 10, which introduces only “a movable floor tool (12)” in the singular. It is unclear whether “the floor tools” refers to the floor tool of claim 10 together with one or more additional floor tools not otherwise introduced, or is intended to refer back to a plurality that has not in fact been established, rendering the scope of claim 11 indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “control unit (24)... configured to activate the two laser scanners (5)... so that the welded bond... is at least one of created symmetrically or provided for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates (6).” As set forth in the claim interpretation above, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the specification, at ¶ [0011], discloses only that the control unit “can be integrated into one of the laser scanners and/or connected to the laser scanners,” without disclosing any circuit, processor, control scheme, or other structure for performing the recited function. Because the specification fails to disclose any structure corresponding to the recited function, the specification does not demonstrate that the inventor had possession of the claimed control unit, and does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed function without undue experimentation.
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, 5-6, 9-10, 12-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20200206843 A1), in view of Norbert (DE 102015102111 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses, in Fig. 3, a device (1) (1, “welding device”) for producing bipolar plates (2) (11, separators; ¶ [0002]: “a welding device... for welding fuel cell separators”; ¶ [0003]: “fuel cell separators (hereinafter simply referred to as “separators”)”; ¶ [0025]: “a workpiece 10 ... is two stacked separators 11 used for ... a fuel cell”), the device (1) comprising:
at least one processing station (3, 4) (2, “laser irradiation unit”; 3, “upper jig”; 4, “lower jig”; the examiner interprets the combination of the laser irradiation unit 2, the upper jig 3, and the lower jig 4 as corresponding to the claimed processing station),
which comprises a stationary laser scanner (5) (24, “galvano scanner”; ¶ [0030]: “The laser irradiation unit 2... includes... a galvano scanner 24 that scans the laser light 20”),
which are configured to create at least one of a fluid-tight or gas-tight welded bond between two individual plates (6) (11, “separators”; ¶ [0025]: “two stacked separators”), forming one of the bipolar plates (2) (¶ [0025]: “The two separators 11 are stacked such that the recessed portions... are brought into contact... This forms spaces S... [which] serves as a refrigerant flow channel”).
The examiner notes that Nakamura’s galvano scanner (24) is stationary relative to the workpiece during welding; only the lower jig (4) is moved, via an elevating device (7), toward and away from the upper jig (3) and laser irradiation unit (2) (¶ [0033]: “The upper jig 3 is... is secured to a welding workbench 6... by screwing in a state of being fitted in an opening”; ¶ [0039]: “the lower jig 4... is constituted such that the lower jig 4 is brought close and move away with respect to the upper jig 3 by an elevating device 7”).
The examiner further notes that Nakamura’s weld portion (B), formed along intended weld lines (L1 to L5) each formed in a loop shape surrounding the fuel gas inlet manifold (111), refrigerant outlet manifold (!12), oxidation gas outlet manifold (113), oxidant gas inlet manifold (114), refrigerant inlet manifold (115), and fuel gas outlet manifold (116), as well as an outer periphery weld line (L1) surrounding the entire separator structure and the refrigerant flow channel (S) (¶¶ [0026]-[0028]), necessarily form at least one of a fluid-tight or gas-tight bond, since a welding failing to seal these manifolds and the coolant flow channel would defeat the separators’ function of isolating the fuel gas, oxidant gas, and coolant flows from one another and from the exterior.
PNG
media_image1.png
733
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Nakamura
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a single galvano scanner (24) (¶ [0030]), but does not explicitly disclose that the at least one processing station comprises at least two stationary laser scanners.
However, Norbert discloses, in Fig. 1, a multi-head laser system (1) for processing an object (4) by welding (Norbert (translation), abstract), comprising at least two stationary laser scanners (2, 3, “production scanners”; Norbert (translation), p. 2, lns. 5-7: “The multi-head laser system has a plurality of rigidly interconnected manufacturing scanner... This unit formed of a plurality of rigidly interconnected manufacturing scanners may preferably be stationary”).
Nakamura and Norbert are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to direct a laser beam onto a workpiece surface for welding. 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 Nakamura’s single galvano scanner to comprise at least two stationary laser scanners, as taught by Norbert, for the purpose of “improving the accuracy of the machining and / or manufacturing process, [] process monitoring and / or [] quality control” (Norbert (translation), p. 5, lns. 55-56), thereby increasing the combined area of the workpiece surface processable by the two laser scanners without moving the laser irradiation unit or the workpiece.
PNG
media_image2.png
502
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Norbert
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two laser scanners (Norbert: 2, 3, “production scanners”) of the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) form a double-field laser scanner (Norbert, p. 4, lns. 49-50: “the two fields of work... [of] the production scanner[s] 2[,] 3 [overlap] partly in an overlap area 14”; p. 5, lns. 53: “the size of the analysis field 24 [corresponds to] the union of the two fields of work 12[,] 13”; the examiner interprets Norbert’s two production scanners (2, 3) having overlapping working fields (12, 13) that together form a combined working area, as corresponding to the claimed two laser scanners forming a double-field laser scanner).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) has at least one optical sensor (8) (Norbert: 21, “optical sensor”; abstract: “the sensor unit... having an optical sensor”) that is adapted to at least one of a) check a position of the welded bond created using the two laser scanners, b) control the two laser scanners (Norbert, p. 4, lns. 5-6: “The correction value can be stored in this control unit of the multi-head laser system so that the movement of the production scanners is corrected”; the examiner interprets Norbert’s correction of the production scanners’ movement, based on data acquired by the optical sensor 21, as corresponding to the claimed optical sensor adapted to control the two laser scanners), c) match scanning fields of the two laser scanners, or d) offset scanning fields of the two laser scanners.
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses in Fig. 1 of Nakamura, the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) has a clamping device (14) (Nakamura: 3, 4, “upper jig” & “lower jig”; ¶ [0029]: “an upper jig (first jig) 3 and a lower jig (second jig) 4 that sandwich the workpiece 10 from both upper and lower sides to secure the workpiece 10”) for individual ones of the plates (6) (Nakamura: 11, “separators”) of the bipolar plate (2) to be produced, the clamping device having a head tool (15) (Nakamura: 3, “upper jig”) that is stationary relative to the laser scanners (5) (Nakamura: 24, “galvano scanner”) of the processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura, ¶ [0033]: “The upper jig 3 is arranged on a side of the laser irradiation unit 2 with respect to the workpiece 10... and is secured to a welding workbench 6, for example, by screwing in a state of being fitted in an opening of the welding workbench 6”).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a movable floor tool (12) (Nakamura: 4, “lower jig”; ¶ [0039]: “the lower jig 4 is... constituted such that the lower jig 4 is brought close and move away with respect to the upper jig 3 by an elevating device 7”), which has a workpiece receptacle (13) (Nakamura, ¶ [0047]: “two separators 11 are placed in sequence on an upper surface of the lower jig 4 to position the two separators 11,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the upper surface of the lower jig (4) on which the separator (11) are placed as corresponding to the claimed workpiece receptacle), assigned at least temporarily to the head tool (15) (Nakamura: 3, “upper jig”; ¶ [0039]: “the lower jig 4... is arranged at a position opposite to the upper jig 3 secured to the welding workbench 6”), the floor tool (12) is centerable using the head tool (15) (Nakamura, ¶ [0051]: “the workpiece 10 placed on the lower jig 4 is brought into contact with a bottom surface of the upper jig 3, and is pressurized by the upper jig 3 and the lower jig 4 at a predetermined value, the elevation of the elevating device 7 stops. This sandwiches the workpiece 10 between the upper jig 3 and the lower jig 4,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the upper jig’s (3) fixed bottom surface, against which the lower jig (4) is driven into contact to establish its final position, as corresponding to the claimed head tool (15) using which the floor tool (12) is centerable), in order to properly align the workpiece receptacle (13) and individual ones of the plates (6) arranged thereon of the bipolar plate (2) to be produced in their processing position and to clamp the plates using the head tool (15) and the floor tool (12) (Nakamura, ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising at least one actuator (16) (Nakamura: 7, “elevating device”) configured for positioning a workpiece receptacle (13) (Nakamura, ¶ [0047]: “two separators 11 are placed in sequence on an upper surface of the lower jig 4 to position the two separators 11,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the upper surface of the lower jig (4) on which the separators (11) are placed as corresponding to the claimed workpiece receptacle) of a floor tool (12) (Nakamura: 4, “lower jig”) relative to a head tool (15) (Nakamura: 3, “upper jig”) of the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) (Nakamura, ¶ [0039]: “the lower jig 4... is constituted such that the lower jig 4 is brought close and move away with respect to the upper jig 3 by an elevating device 7”).
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 12, further comprising an interchangeable holder (17) (Nakamura: 6, “welding workbench) for at least one of the head tool (15) or the floor tool (12) (Nakamura, ¶ [0033]: “The upper jig 3 is arranged on a side of the laser irradiation unit 2 with respect to the workpiece 10... and is secured to a welding workbench 6, for example, by screwing in a state of being fitted in an opening of the welding workbench 6”; ¶ [0056]: “when the upper jig 3 has two jigs... the welding operation is divided into a first welding operation that uses the first upper jig 3a and a second welding operation that uses the second upper jig 3b. In this case, for example, after the first welding operation is terminated, the lower jig 4 is once caused to descend, and a replacement of the upper jig 3 (that is, replacing to the second upper jig 3b from the first upper jig 3a) is performed,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the opening of the welding workbench (6), into which the upper jig (3) is removably fitted and secured by screwing, thereby permitting the replacement of the upper jig (3), as corresponding to the claimed interchangeable holder).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a protective gassing device (18) (Nakamura: 5, “chamber”; 32, “introduction path”; 53, “introduction hole”), which is configured to provide a workspace (19) (Nakamura: 31, “exposed portion(s)”; ¶ [0033]: “The upper jig 3... has a plurality of exposed portions 31 that expose the intended weld lines L1 to L5 of the workpiece 10 to the laser irradiation unit 2 side”) of the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) with a protective gas atmosphere (Nakamura, ¶ [0035]: “the upper jig 3 has an introduction path 32 that introduces an inert gas to the exposed portions 31”; ¶ [0040]: “The chamber 5 is arranged in an upper side of the upper jig 3 so as to cover the exposed portions 31 and communicates with the exposed portions 31”; ¶ [0008]: “when the inert gas is introduced to the inside of the chamber via the introduction hole, the introduced inert gas flows into the inside of the exposed portion communicating with the chamber to ensure pushing and flowing an oxygen gas inside the exposed portion to the outside. This ensures lowering an oxygen concentration inside the exposed portion”).
As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, the term “protective gassing device (18)” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) as covering a protective gas outlet (20) provided on the head tool (15) and/or floor tool (12), via which protective gas is introduced into the workspace (19), and equivalents thereof, as disclosed in the specification at ¶¶ [0032] and [0057]-[0058]. Nakamura’s introduction path (32), disposed within the upper jig (3) (the head tool (15), per the mapping of claim 9 above) and communicating directly with the exposed portions (31) (the workspace 19) to introduce inert gas thereto, is structurally equivalent to the disclosed corresponding structure. Nakamura’s chamber (5) and introduction hole (53), which likewise introduce inert gas to the exposed portions (31) via a chamber mounted over and communicating with the exposed portions, provide an alternative gas-introduction structure equivalent to the disclosed protective gas outlet (20).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser scanners (5) (Norbert: 2, 3, “production scanners”) of the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) have overlapping scanning fields (Norbert, p. 4, lns. 49-50: “the two fields of work overlap 12 . 13 the production scanner 2 . 3 partly in an overlap area 14,” as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 12, wherein at least one of the head tool (15) or the floor tool (12) is designed as an interchangeable tool (Nakamura: 3a, “first upper jig”; 3b, “second upper jig”; ¶ [0056]: “when the upper jig 3 has two jigs (the first upper jig 3a and the second upper jig 3b), ... after the first welding operation is terminated, the lower jig 4 is once caused to descend, and a replacement of the upper jig 3 (that is, replacing to the second upper jig 3b from the first upper jig 3a) is performed”; the examiner interprets that Nakamura’s disclosure of the upper jig (3) (the head tool 15, per the mapping of claim 9 above) as being removable and replaceable with an alternative upper jig (3a, 3b) as corresponding to the claimed head tool designed as an interchangeable tool).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20200206843 A1), in view of Norbert (DE 102015102111 A1), and further in view of Tsukui (US 20170304943 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) comprises the two laser scanners (5) (Norbert: 2, 3) configured to create a welded bond between the two individual plates (6) (Nakamura: 11; ¶¶ [0002], [0025]).
Nakamura and Norbert does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising at least one control unit (24) configured to activate the two laser scanners (5) so that the welded bond between the two individual plates (6) is at least one of created symmetrically or provided for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates (6) during creation of the welded bond between the two individual plates (6).
However, Tsukui discloses, in Fig. 2A, a welding system (1) comprising
at least one control unit (24) (12, “controller) configured to activate the two laser scanners (5) (14 & 14’, “directing units”; ¶ [0067]: “directing unit 14/controller 12 may comprise a Galvanoscanner,” which the examiner interprets the directing unit 14 comprising a Galvanoscanner as corresponding to the laser scanner) so that the welded bond between the two individual plates (3) (Fig. 2D: 15, “case” & 10, “cover”; ¶ [0024]: “an elongate battery case and cover”; ¶ [0082]: “during welding of portions of target 2... During welding of a stepped portion of case 15 and cover 10”) is at least one of created symmetrically or provided for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates (6) during creation of the welded bond between two individual plates (6) (¶ [0082]: “During welding of a stepped portion of case 15 and cover 10... controller 12 may cause an arrangement for first and second collections 60 and 60′ to form a square profile 61′, with combined heat source point 38 at the center of square profile 61’”; Figs. 4A & 4C; the examiner interpreting this symmetric, centered arrangement of the two heat source point collections generated by the two directing units 14, 14’ as at least providing for a symmetrical introduction of heat into the case 15 and cover 10 during welding).
Nakamura, Norbert and Tsukui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding devices employing controlled beam-directing components to process a workpiece. 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 device of Nakamura and Norbert with a control unit configured to activate the two stationary laser scanners such that the welded bond is created symmetrically or a symmetrical introduction of heat into the individual plates takes place, as taught by Tsukui, in order to “limit potential adverse effects on the battery, while maximizing weld efficiency and quality.” Tsukui, ¶ [0083].
PNG
media_image3.png
333
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A of Tsukui
PNG
media_image4.png
282
633
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2D, 4A & 4C of Tsukui
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 20200206843 A1), in view of Norbert (DE 102015102111 A1), and further in view of Kapp (DE 102019103361 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4) comprises two stationary laser scanners (5) (Norbert: 2, 3), configured to create the at least one of the fluid-tight or gas-tight welded bond between the two individual plates (6) (Nakamura: 11: ¶¶ [0002], [0025]) forming the bipolar plate (2) (Nakamura: ¶ [0025]).
Nakamura and Norbert does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processing station includes two processing stations (3, 4), which each comprise two of the stationary laser scanners (5).
However, Kapp discloses, in Fig. 1, a device (10, “device”; abstract: “a device for producing laser-welded metal sheets”; p. 2, ln. 23: “two metal sheets can be welded to form a bipolar plate for a fuel cell”) comprising at least one processing station includes two processing stations (3, 4) (12a, 12b, “processing stations”; Kapp (translation), p. 4, lns. 20-23: “an embodiment with three independent processing stations 12a , 12b , 12c . In these processing stations 12a, 12b , 12c at least one scanning device, not shown, and at least one laser processing device, not shown, are provided with which the metal sheets to be processed... can be scanned and processed by laser irradiation”).
Nakamura, Norbert and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheet, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. 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 device comprising two processing stations, each processing station comprising two stationary laser scanners as taught by Nakamura and Norbert, arranged as two independent processing stations as taught by Kapp, in order to achieve “a cycle rate when clocking that is lower than the processing time in the... processing station” (Kapp (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-5), thereby increasing production throughput.
PNG
media_image5.png
315
609
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Kapp
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura in view of Norbert and Kapp discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 3, including two processing stations (3, 4) (Kapp: 12a, 12b), each comprising two stationary laser scanners (Norbert: 2, 3).
Nakamura, Norbert and Kapp does not explicitly disclose
wherein a first part of the welded bond connecting the two individual plates (6) of the bipolar plate (2) is adapted to be created in a first processing station (3) of the two processing stations (3, 4) and a second part of the welded bond connecting the two individual plates (6) is adapted to be created in a second processing station (4).
However, Nakamura further discloses dividing a welding operation into a first part and a second part using two different jigs, each jig exposing a different portion of the weld line(s) to be created (Nakamura: 3a, “first upper jig”; 3b, “second upper jig”; ¶ [0034]: “the respective exposed portions 31 form exposed portions that expose a part of the loop-shaped intended weld lines L1 to L5 to the first upper jig 3a and exposed portions that expose the remaining portions of the loop-shaped intended weld lines L1 to L5 to the second upper jig 3b”; ¶ [0056]: “when the upper jig 3 has two jigs... the welding operation is divided into a first welding operation that uses the first upper jig 3a and a second welding operation that uses the second upper jig 3b”). The examiner interprets Nakamura’s division of a single welding operation into a first welding operation, performed using the first upper jig (3a), and a second welding operation, performed using the second upper jig (3b), as corresponding to the claimed division of the welded bond into a first part, created at a first processing station, and a second part, created at a second processing station, when applied to the two independently-provided processing stations already taught by Nakamura in combination with Norbert and Kapp as set forth in claim 3.
Nakamura, Norbert and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheets, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. 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 combined device such that a first part of the welded bond is created at the first processing station and a second part of the welded bond is created at the second processing station, rather than requiring replacement of a single jig at a single station, as taught by Nakamura (¶ [0056]: “after the first welding operation is terminated, the lower jig 4 is once caused to descend, and a replacement of the upper jig 3... is performed”), in order to eliminate the jig-replacement downtime between the first and second welding operations and thereby “achiev[ing] a cycle rate... that is lower than the processing time in the... processing station” (Kapp (translation), p. 4, lns. 4-5), and increasing production throughput, consistent with Kapp’s own stated goal of using independent processing stations.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, comprising at least one processing station (3, 4) (Nakamura: 2, 3, 4), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a conveying device (9) via which two or more of a) the at least one processing station (3, 4), b) a charging station (10), and c) a removing station (11) are connected to one another for conveying.
However, Kapp discloses, in Fig. 1, a conveying device (9) (Kapp (translation), p. 3, ln. 3: “transport device”) via which two or more of a) the at least one processing station (3, 4) (12a, 12b, “processing stations”), b) a charging station (10), and c) a removing station (11) are connected to one another for conveying (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns, 3-6: “a transport device is provided to transport sheets to be processed to at least one scanning device and at least one... the laser processing device, to process it there by cutting and / or welding and then to convey processed metal sheets out of the device, the degree of automation can be further increased and the efficiency of a corresponding device can be further improved,” which the examiner interprets as disclosing that the transport device connects multiple processing stations to one another for conveying; p. 4, lns. 38-41: “the automation carrier 14b on the automation support 14c conveyed past in conveying direction F and according to arrow E1 to the processing station 12a be transported while at the same time the automation carrier 14d from the working plane B1 according to the arrow E1 back into the transport level TO and then transported out of the device in the transport level TO. At the same time becomes the automation carrier 14c in the processing station 12b processed,” which the examiner interprets as disclosing transporting sheets to at least one processing station and conveying processed sheets out of the device as corresponding to the claimed conveying device connecting the at least one processing station and a removing station for conveying, within the meaning of claim 7 as interpreted above).
Nakamura, Norbert, and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheets, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. 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 device of Nakamura and Norbert to include a conveying device connecting the at least one processing station to a charging station and a removing station for conveying, as taught by Kapp, in order to have “the degree of automation... increased” and “the efficiency of a corresponding device improved.” Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 3-4.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a floor tool (12), which comprises a workpiece receptacle (13) for at least one of the bipolar plates (2) that is movable from a starting position into a processing position, for each station (3, 4, 10, 11) of the device (1).
However, Kapp discloses, in Fig. 1, a floor tool (12) (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, “automation carriers”), which comprises a workpiece receptacle (13) for at least one of the bipolar plates (2) (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-8: “at least one carrier element is provided as a means for holding, into which sheets to be processed can be inserted,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the portion of the automation carrier (14a-d) into which sheets are inserted, as corresponding to the claimed workpiece receptacle) that is movable from a starting position into a processing position (Kapp (translation), p. 4, lns. 26-27: “Starting from the transport level TO, the automation carriers 14a , 14b , 14c , 14d by means of a clamping device (not shown) in the direction of the double arrows E1, E2, E3 in a working plane B1 be raised,” which the examiner interprets as teaching the transport level (TO) as the claimed starting position and the working plane (B1) as the claimed processing position), for each station (3, 4, 10, 11) of the device (1) (12a, 12b, 12c, “processing stations”; the examiner interprets Kapp’s provision of an automation carrier moving through each of the plural stations shown as corresponding to the claimed floor tool provided for each station of the device).
Nakamura, Norbert and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheets, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Nakamura and Norbert to include a floor tool comprising a workpiece receptacle movable from a starting position into a processing position, provided for each station of the device, as taught by Kapp, in order to enable “metal sheets in the automation carriers [to] be cycled through” (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 11-12) the device’s stations, thereby increasing the degree of automation and efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 10, comprising a movable floor tool (12) (Nakamura: 4, “lower jig”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein there are at least two of the floor tools (12), which are movable from station to station of the device (1).
However, Kapp discloses, in Fig. 1, a device (10) comprising at least two of the floor tools (12) (14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, “automation carriers”), which are movable from station to station of the device (1) (Kapp (translation), p. 4, lns. 38-41: “the automation carrier 14b on the automation support 14c conveyed past in conveying direction F and according to arrow E1 to the processing station 12a be transported while at the same time the automation carrier 14d from the working plane B1 according to the arrow E1 back into the transport level TO and then transported out of the device in the transport level TO. At the same time becomes the automation carrier 14c in the processing station 12b processed,” which the examiner interprets as disclosing at least two floor tools, each independently movable from station to station of the device).
Nakamura, Norbert, and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheets, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Nakamura and Norbert to include at least two floor tools, each movable from station to station of the device, as taught by Kapp, in order to enable “metal sheets in the automation carriers [to] be cycled through” (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 11-12) the device’s stations, thereby increasing the degree of automation and efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura in view of Norbert discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one handling device (21), which is configured for at least one of charging the device (1) with the individual plates (6) or for removing the bipolar plates (2).
However, Kapp discloses, in Fig. 1, at least one handling device (21) (Kapp (translation), p. 3, ln. 11: “carrier handling device,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the claimed handling device), which is configured for at least one of charging the device (1) with the individual plates (6) (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 10-12: “a large number of automation carriers are used as carrier elements, which are designed to interact with a carrier handling device in such a way that metal sheets in the automation carriers can be cycled through”; p. 4, lns. 12-13: “Use of optical and / or geometric reference points on sheets to be processed in order to grip and move them by means of a gripping device”; the examiner interprets the gripping device used to grip and move sheets to be processed, in conjunction with the carrier handling device that cycles metal sheets through the automation carriers, as corresponding to the claimed handling device configured for charging the device with individual plates and/or removing the bipolar plates) or for removing the bipolar plates (2).
As set forth in the claim interpretation section above, the term “handling device (21)” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as covering a swivel-arm robot (22) and suction gripper (23), and equivalent thereof, as disclosed in the specification at ¶ [0034]. Kapp’s gripping device, used in conjunction with the carrier handling device to grip and move sheets to be processed, performs the identical function of charging the device with individual plates and is structurally equivalent to the gripper disclosed as corresponding structure in the specification.
Nakamura, Norbert and Kapp are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing devices employing scanning optics to weld metal sheets, including sheets forming a bipolar plate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Nakamura and Norbert to include a handling device configured for charging the device with individual plates, as taught by Kapp, in order to enable “metal sheets in the automation carriers [to] be cycled through” (Kapp (translation), p. 3, lns. 11-12) the device’s stations, thereby increasing the degree of automation and efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura in view of Norbert and Kapp discloses the device (1) (Nakamura: 1) as claimed in claim 15, wherein the at least one handling device (21) (Kapp (translation), p. 3, ln. 11: “carrier handling device,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the claimed handling device) comprises at least one of a robot, at least one gripper, or a suction gripper (23) (Kapp (translation), p. 4, ln. 13: “gripping device,” as cited in the rejection of claim 15 above, the examiner interprets Kapp’s gripping device as corresponding to the claimed “at least one gripper” alternative).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ryu et al. (KR 20140110124 A).
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
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights