Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2018

13552681 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/552,681 07/19/2012 Steven R. Peters 072056-8105.US00 3114
91854 7590 01/12/2018
Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
EXAMINER
ROSARIO-APONTE, ALBA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2018 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):
wdcle @perkinscoie. com
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
ip @ lincolnelectrie .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN R. PETERS,
BRIAN SIMONS, and GEOFF LIPNEVICIUS1
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, FREDERICK C. LANEY, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CALVE, 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, 5-15, and 31-36. Appeal Br. 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Lincoln Global, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to welding systems that modulate the heat input into
a weld while welding. Spec. ^ 1. Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims.
Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A welding system, comprising:
a welding power supply which provides a current welding
waveform to a welding electrode; and
a wire feeder which provides said welding electrode to at least
one workpiece to be welded by said power supply;
wherein said current welding waveform has a first waveform
portion with a first current profile and a second waveform portion
with a second current profile, where said first current profile is
different from said second current profile and said current welding
waveform periodically switches from said first current profile to said
second current profile,
wherein said first waveform portion provides a higher heat
input during welding than said second waveform portion,
wherein said wire feeder provides said welding electrode at a
first wire feed speed during said first waveform portion and at a
second wire feed speed during said second waveform portion, where
said first wire feed speed is different than said second wire feed speed,
and
wherein at least one of said first and second current profiles is
an AC current profile.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims Appendix).2
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 14, 32-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nishisaka (EP 1,681,123 A2, pub. July 19, 2006).
2 Refers to the Supplemental Appeal Brief that was filed July 25, 2016, in
response to a Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief. All other references
to the Appeal Brief are to the Appeal Brief that was filed on June 6, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
Claims 5, 8, 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishisaka and Kazmaier (US 2012/0074115 Al, pub.
Mar. 29, 2012).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishisaka and Stava (US 6,051,810, iss. Apr. 18, 2000).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishisaka and Peters (US 2008/0053978 Al, pub. Mar. 6,
2008).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishisaka and Kosaka (US 6,023,044, iss. Feb. 8, 2000).
Claims 2, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kazmaier and Kosaka.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, 9, 13, 14, 32—34, and 36
As Anticipated by Nishisaka
The issue in dispute is whether Nishisaka’s welding system switches
periodically between a first waveform/first current profile and a second
waveform/second current profile, wherein “said first waveform portion
provides a higher heat input during welding than said second waveform
portion,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants do not dispute that Nishisaka
switches between two different waveforms, as claimed. See Appeal Br. 13.
Rather, Appellants argue that Nishisaka discloses that the heat input into the
first region during the initial DC waveform portion should be the same as the
heat input into the second region during the AC waveform portion to keep
the weld penetration the same or substantially the same for the two regions.
Id. at 13-14 (citing Nishisaka ^ 29).
3
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
The Examiner finds that Nishisaka discloses a welding system with
power supply (Fig. 4) that provides a first DC welding current waveform
from tl to t3 and a different AC welding current waveform starting at t3 and
the first waveform provides a higher heat input than the second waveform.
Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Nishisaka discloses that the wire for
the consumable electrode is fed at a lower speed during the first waveform
from time tl to t3 and gradually increased during the second waveform from
time t3 to t4. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner reasons that this disclosure means
that heat input during the first DC waveform is greater than heat input during
the subsequent AC waveform. Id.
Appellants disclose systems and methods that can change, during the
welding process (i.e., on-the-fly), between two different welding waveform
types in order to change/modulate the heat that is input into a weld, e.g., by
changing from a high heat input welding operation to a low heat welding
operation. Spec. ]} 14-16. Appellants calculate the heat input into a weld as
Kj/in, which is Amps x Volt x 1,000 / Travel Speed x 60. Id. ]} 17.
Nishisaka discloses a method for the start-up of AC arc welding that
avoids the problem of arc extinction that can occur during the start-up of AC
arc welding when the arc is transient and unstable and can be extinguished
as the polarity changes as AC arcing begins. Nishisaka ]}]} 9, 14. Nishisaka
solves this problem by starting an AC arc weld with a DC current waveform
of electrode-positive polarity followed by the AC current waveform, and the
electrode feed speed increases gradually without arc extinction.3 Id. ]} 17.
3 Nishisaka also discloses that “it is possible, in AC arc welding, to reduce
the amount of heat input into the base material for forming desired welding
beads” and “[t]his is advantageous to improving the welding quality in
conducting thin-plate welding.” Nishisaka]} 6.
4
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
Nishisaka discloses that “the heat input into the base material should
be the same for the two regions” (i.e., the initial DC arc welding period and
the steady state AC arc welding period) so that “the penetration in the [DC]
arc-start region [is] the same or substantially the same as the penetration in
the [AC] steady-state region.” Nishisaka ^ 29. This continuity also ensures
that the welding beads formed by the DC arc welding are substantially the
same as welding beads formed by the subsequent AC arc welding. Id. ^ 18.
The Examiner is correct to find that the feed speed of the consumable
electrode for DC arc welding is less than the feed speed of the wire for AC
arc welding. However, Nishisaka uses different feed speeds for DC and AC
arc welding to make the DC welding current the same as the AC welding
current average value. Id. TJ 29. Because the heat input from the DC and AC
arcs is largely proportional to the average value of their welding currents,
making the DC welding current substantially the same as the AC welding
current via different wire feeding speeds ensures that the heat input into the
base material is the same for both regions. Id. Thus, the wire feed speed is
chosen so the heat input from the DC welding current is the same as the heat
input from the AC welding current. Id. and Fig. 2. Thus, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1 or its dependent claims 6, 9, 13, 14, 32-34, and 36.
Claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 31, and 35
Rejected Over Nishisaka and Kazmaier/Stava/Peters/Kosaka
The Examiner’s reliance on Kazmaier, Stava, Peters, and Kosaka to
teach features of claims 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 31, and 35 does not overcome the
deficiencies of Nishisaka discussed above as to claim 1 from which these
claims depend. See Final Act. 5-8; Appeal Br. 18, 21, 22, 23. Thus, we do
not sustain the rejection of these claims.
5
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
Claims 2, 3, and 10
Rejected Over Kazmaier and Kosaka
Appellants argue claims 2, 3, and 10 as a group. Appeal Br. 24-26.
We select claim 10 as representative, with claims 2 and 3 standing or falling
with claim 10. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Kazmaier teaches a welding system as recited
in claim 10 having a first waveform portion (positive current profiles 26, 28)
and a second waveform portion (negative current profile 27, 29), but lacks a
geometry monitoring device that monitors a geometry of a weld joint or a
thickness of a workpiece where the power supply switches between the first
and second current profiles based on a detected change in the weld joint
geometry or workpiece thickness. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner finds that
Kosaka teaches a welding system with such a geometry monitoring device
wherein a power supply switches between first and second current profiles
based on a change in weld joint geometry and workpiece thickness. Id. at 9.
The Examiner determiners it would have been obvious to include this feature
of Kosaka in Kazmaier to improve the welding quality. Id.
Appellants argue that Kosaka discloses changing welding conditions
such as welding voltage, welding current, and welding speed of a single
current profile based on weld joint geometry but does not change from one
current profile to another current profile based on weld joint geometry.
Appeal Br. 24-25. Appellants also argue that Kosaka does not change the
polarity of the welding current profile from a positive waveform to a
negative waveform based on weld joint geometry as would be necessary to
modify Kazmaier’s changing of waveforms from a positive portion to a
negative portion as the Examiner contends. Id. at 25; Reply Br. 23-24.
6
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
The Examiner’s finding that Kazmaier teaches two welding current
waveforms in Figure 4a (Final Act. 8) is supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Kazmaier teaches a welding current waveform with (1) a first
positive polarity profile 26, 28 and (2) a second negative polarity profile 27.
Kazmaier 48. Appellants do not dispute that Kazmaier changes welding
current profiles in Figure 4a or otherwise persuade us of error in that finding.
See Appeal Br. 24-25; Reply Br. 22-24. Indeed, Appellants disclose a
similar waveform with two portions. First waveform portion 210 includes
welding current 201 of a positive polarity, and second waveform portion 220
includes welding current of a negative polarity. Spec. ^ 18, Fig. 2.
The Examiner proposes to modify Kazmaier to change the waveforms
based on a detected change in weld geometry, which Kosaka’s teachings
suggest to do for different weld gaps to improve weld quality. Ans. 17-18.
Kosaka teaches that changes to welding current and voltage, via an adaptive
welding control that responds to detected weld gap length, improves weld
quality. Kosaka, 7:47-54; 1:34-55. The Examiner reasonably interprets
Kosaka as changing from a first current profile to a second current profile
and applies this teaching to the current waveforms of Kazmaier for similar
beneficial effect. Ans. 17-18. Kosaka’s gap detection can be applied to any
type of welding. See Kosaka, 5:40 45. Appellants’ argument that a change
in current profile requires a change in polarity is not commensurate with
claim 10, and thus is not persuasive. Moreover, Kazmaier teaches changes
between two welding waveforms of positive polarity 26, 28. Kazmaier 51.
Thus, even if Kosaka were understood to teach only changes to current
profiles of the same polarity, motivation exists to modify Kazmaier with
Kosaka’s teachings.
7
Appeal 2017-002864
Application 13/552,681
Appellants disclose that different current profiles may have the same
or a different polarity or may be AC waveforms with varying polarity. Id.
16. Appellants disclose that changes in current profiles involve changes in
the amperage of the welding current over time. See Spec. 18-22, Fig. 2;
see also Patent No. US 6,215,100 Bl, 8:55-10:10, Figs. 4, 5, incorporated
by reference into the present Specification (Spec. ^ 19). The Examiner finds
that Kosaka discloses similar changes to a welding current in Figure 12 and
thus teaches changing the welding current profile in response to detected
changes in weld geometry as claimed. Ans. 17-18. The Examiner’s finding
is supported by a preponderance of evidence, and the determination of
obviousness is supported by a rational underpinning based on Kosaka’s
teachings discussed above. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 and
claims 2 and 3, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 10, and we reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 11-15, and 31-36.
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-IN-P ART
8