Ex Parte Fujiwara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

13820557 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/820,557 03/04/2013
52473 7590 05/22/2018
RATNERPRESTIA
2200 RENAISSANCE BL VD
SUITE 350
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Junji Fujiwara
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MAT-10584US 6854
EXAMINER
CALVETTI, FREDERICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pcorrespondence@ratnerpres tia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN JI FUJIWARA,
ATSUHIRO KAW AM OTO, and MASARU KOW A 1
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
Technology Center 3700
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE,
and LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 16-19, and 21-23. Appeal Br. 1.
Claims 2, 7-10, 15, and 20 are cancelled. Id. at 10-12 (Claims App'x). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. is identified as the
real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims recite an arc welding method with a consumable electrode
that is fed toward a workpiece and backward away from the workpiece to
create alternate short circuits and arcs, where the forward velocity above the
basic wire feed speed differs from the reverse velocity below the basic wire
feed speed. Spec. 5:6-7:1, Fig. 2. Making the forward velocity amplitude
less than the reverse velocity amplitude delays the occurrence of a short
circuit and thus increases the arc period. Id. at 12:5-16, Fig. 2.
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A consumable electrode arc welding control
method in which short-circuit welding is performed by
alternating short-circuits and arcs while a welding wire is fed
automatically, the method comprising:
determining a basic wire feed speed, the basic wire feed speed
being an average feed speed for a set welding current; and
alternatively generating a short-circuit state and an arc state by
feeding the welding wire at a predetermined frequency and a
predetermined velocity amplitude with reference to the basic wire
feed speed,
wherein an upper velocity amplitude of the wire feed speed
above the basic wire feed speed is different from a lower velocity
amplitude of the wire feed speed below the basic wire feed speed.
Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3---6, 11-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara (US 2012/0111842 Al, pub. May 10,
2012), Narayanan (US 2006/0070983 Al, pub. Apr. 6, 2006), and Huismann
(US 7,102,099 B2, iss. Sept. 5, 2006).
2
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-6, 11-13 as one group and claims 14,
16-19, and 21-23 as another group. See Appeal Br. 3-8. We select claims
1 and 14 as representative claims of each group. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1, 3---6, and 11-13
Appellants raise three principal arguments. First, Appellants argue
that "the claims require the basic wire feed speed to be determined based on
a set welding current" and the Examiner has not identified this feature in the
prior art. Appeal Br. 3. Second, Appellants argue that the basic wire feed
speed is an average feed speed for a set welding current, and Fujiwara does
not disclose different velocity amplitudes above and below the average feed
speed and teaches away from using different velocity amplitudes above and
below the average feed speed by disclosing the advantages of this welding
process. Id. at 4---6. Third, Appellants argue that Fujiwara, Huismann, and
Narayanan teach a wire feed speed waveform that is asymmetric about the
zero wire feed speed line but none of the references teach a basic wire feed
speed as an average feed speed for a set welding current as claimed. Id. at 6.
First, the Examiner correctly finds that Fujiwara teaches a basic wire
feed rate that is an average feed rate that is determined based on the welding
current as claimed. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7-10. Appellants' arguments do not
address the findings of the Examiner and therefore do not apprise us of error
in those findings. Fujiwara teaches "a welding wire feeding rate suitable for
a welding current is determined as an average feeding rate" and "offers arc
welding with an average feeding rate according to a welding current" so that
"at least one of the frequency and the velocity amplitude is set to a value
suitable for the welding current." Fujiwara ,r 11; Ans. 8-9 ( citing id.).
3
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
Fujiwara teaches that the wire feeding rate changes in proportion to
change in welding current" so "average feeding rate of a wire feeding rate
should be changed in synchronization with (in proportion to) the welding
current." Id. ,r 7; see also id. ,r,r 12, 33, 34, 40, 46, 61, 62, 75, 77, Abstract.
The Examiner supports his findings with citations to these and other portions
of Fujiwara with similar disclosures. Final Act. 3; Ans. 7-10.
The Examiner also correctly finds that Fujiwara teaches asymmetrical
feeding and retracting velocities such that the value of an upper portion of a
velocity amplitude differs relative to a lower portion. See Ans. 10-11 ( citing
Fujiwara ,r 6 (to attain mechanical release of the short circuit state to achieve
an arc, "the wire needs to be fed in reverse at a feeding rate greater than the
average feeding rate of wire feeding.")). Appellants do not address this
finding of the Examiner and therefore do not apprise of Examiner error in
this regard. See Reply Br. 1-3. Fujiwara's teaching of one alternative that
attempts to optimize frequency and velocity amplitudes for each welding
current does not teach away or preclude other arrangements, particularly
where Fujiwara ascribes defective weld beads, spatters, and poor penetration
to instability of the welding arc caused by increases in welding speed and
disturbances, such as changes in wire extension and gaps between objects to
be welded, rather than to differences in the amplitude or frequency of the
welding wire feed rate. Fujiwara ,r 12; see Appeal Br. 6 (citing id.).
In any case, the Examiner is not proposing to alter Fujiwara's feeding
rate amplitude that is predetermined based on the welding current. Rather,
the Examiner proposes to modify Fujiwara so the feed rate amplitude is a
predetermined rate based on welding current that may be asymmetrical (i.e.,
greater in one direction than the other) to an average rate. Final Act. 3--4.
4
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
The Examiner relies not only on Fujiwara's teaching that the velocity
amplitude can be greater in one direction than the other (Fujiwara ,r 6), but
the Examiner also relies on teachings of Huismann and Narayanan of the
advantages of such asymmetrical feed rate amplitudes. Huismann teaches
alternatives in which "the controller commands a faster or slower wire feed
speed in reverse when the open circuit is detected" and "[b ]y commanding a
faster reverse speed the desired arc length will be obtained more quickly."
In addition, "other than constant speeds" may be used. Huismann, 8:44--52;
Final Act. 3 ( citing id.). Huismann further teaches that "[ o ]ne process cycle
may include multiple speed changes for each current cycle" and these speed
changes provide mechanical control of the arcing and short circuit states to
achieve desired arcing and welding states. Huismann, 4:6-22; Final Act. 3
( citing id.). The Examiner also relies on Huismann to teach that controlling
wire movement based on the welding current can reduce spatter, instability,
and other undesirable features as well as provide a better, desired arc length.
Huismann, 3 :55---67; Final Act. 4 ( citing id.). These teachings of Huismann
provide a rational underpinning for the Examiner's proposed modification of
Fujiwara, and Appellants do not apprise us of Examiner error in this regard.
Narayanan also teaches advantages of asymmetrical waveforms for an
electrode welding process. Narayanan ,r,r 2, 71, Fig. 14; Final Act. 4 (citing
id.). Specifically, Narayanan teaches that such waveforms can cause molten
metal in the welding puddle P to remain somewhat quiescent during the
welding operation. Narayanan ,r 71. Once again, Appellants do not address
these findings of the Examiner and therefore do not apprise us of Examiner
error in this regard. See Appeal Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 1-3.
5
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
Figure 14 ofNarayanan shows an asymmetrical waveform with a top
portion having a much smaller shape and volume than a bottom portion,
similar to Figure 2 of Appellants' disclosure. Huismann and Narayanan thus
teach to use wire feed speeds that are asymmetrical relative to a basic or an
average wire feed speed that might be determined or used for a particular
welding current. Thus, for all the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
of claims 1, 3---6, and 11-13.
Claims 14, 16-19, and 21-23
Independent claim 14 recites an arc welding control method with
similar features as claim 1, and including a step of "setting a set current
before the arc welding." Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App'x). The Examiner
relies on Fujiwara, Huismann, and Narayanan as for claim 1. See Final Act.
3-6. Appellants' argue that claim 14 is not obvious for the same reasons as
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons
discussed above for claim 1.
Appellants also argue that claim 14 includes an additional step of
"setting a set current before the arc welding" and the Examiner has not made
any findings in this regard. Id. at 8. This argument is not persuasive in view
of Fujiwara's teachings of a welding current setting section that determines a
welding current and an average feeding rate section that then determines the
average feeding rate of a welding wire according to the set welding current.
Fujiwara ,r,r 13, 46, 48-50, 61; see Final Act. 6. The Examiner's findings in
this regard also are supported by the many disclosures in Fujiwara of setting
a feed rate amplitude based on the determined welding current. Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in this regard. See Appeal Br. 8.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, 16-19, and 21-23.
6
Appeal2017-008302
Application 13/820,557
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 11-14, 16-19, and 21-23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7