Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2014

11849815 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/849,815 09/04/2007 Pingfan Peter Wu 148741-5 (GERD:0186-1) 6361
41838 7590 06/10/2014
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (PCPI)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
HEINRICH, SAMUEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PINGFAN PETER WU, PAMELA KING BENICEWICZ,
and MAGDI NAIM AZER
____________________

Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pingfan Peter Wu, et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 27-46. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 27, 40, and 41 are independent. Claim 27 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter and reads:
27. A laser shock peening system, comprising:
a pulsed laser operable to direct a pulsed laser
beam toward an opaque layer disposed on a surface of a
work piece;
a spectrometer operable to produce a line spectrum
of radiation emitted by a plasma produced by the pulsed
laser during a shock peening process;
a spectrum analyzer operable to compare line
broadening of the line spectrum about an emission peak
with line broadening about a peak in a defined line shape;
and
a process control system configured to control,
based upon the comparison, the laser shock peening
system to alter at least one of laser energy, laser beam
diameter at a work piece, rise time, or pulse width of a
laser beam produced by the laser to produce a plasma.

REJECTIONS
Appellants request review of the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a):
I. Claims 27, 36, 40, and 41 stand rejected as unpatentable over
Sokol (US 6,254,703 B1; issued July 3, 2001) and Neiheisel (US 4,456,812;
June 26, 1984).
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

3
II. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected as unpatentable over Sokol,
Neiheisel, and Kurtz (US 5,828,724; issued Oct. 27, 1998).
III. Claim 30 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
Kurtz, and Neacsu (US 2006/0085141 A1; published Apr. 20, 2006).
IV. Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected as unpatentable over Sokol,
Neiheisel, Kurtz, Neacsu, and Matsuura (US 5,472,883; issued Dec. 5,
1995).
V. Claim 33 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
Kurtz, and Hoop (US 6,799,644 B2; issued Oct. 5, 2004).
VI. Claim 34 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
Kurtz, Hoop, and Gu (US 6,673,200 B1; issued Jan. 6, 2004).
VII. Claim 35 stand rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
and Hamamatsu Photonics (JP406000194A, published Jan. 11, 1994).
VIII. Claim 37 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
and Zeng (US 7,113,666 B2; issued Sept. 26, 2006).
IX. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected as unpatentable over Sokol,
Neiheisel, Zeng, and Borgstahl (US 6,498,829 B1; Dec. 24, 2002).
X. Claims 42 and 45 stand rejected as unpatentable over Sokol,
Neiheisel, and O Loughlin (US 6,191,385 B1; issued Feb. 20, 2001).
XI. Claim 43 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
and Dubnack (US 6,312,422 B1; issued Nov. 6, 2001).
XII. Claim 44 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
and Fuji Xerox (JP 58198020 A; published Nov. 17, 1983).
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

4
XIII. Claim 46 stands rejected as unpatentable over Sokol, Neiheisel,
and Lambert (US 6,961,599 B2; issued Nov. 1, 2005).

ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Claims 27, 36, and 41
Claim 27 recites, inter alia, “a process control system configured to
control, based upon the comparison, the laser shock peening system to alter
at least one of laser energy . . . to produce a plasma.” Emphasis added.
Appellants contend that Sokol does not teach the claimed “process
control system.” App. Br. 9. Appellants contend that Sokol discloses a
system for monitoring a workpiece during laser shock processing to achieve
real-time quality control of the work piece (id. at 8 (citing col. 1, ll. 6-7)),
and both real-time monitoring and quality control are not the same as
process control (id. at 8-9). Appellants further contend that “Sokol does not
teach a system that alters its own parameters in response to the monitoring
process, that is, control of the process parameters based upon feedback and
comparison.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner found Sokol discloses plasma emission measurement
using spectroscopic techniques with broadening of spectral lines. Ans. 5
(citing col. 7, ll. 48 et seq.). The Examiner also found Sokol describes real
time monitoring of laser shock peening, and correlating a feature of the
spectral emissions to shock pressure applied to the workpiece. Ans. 11
(citing col. 2, ll. 55-67). The Examiner determined that Sokol describes “an
apparatus which is capable of process control based upon a comparison of
plasma emission measurement using spectroscopic techniques comprising
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

5
broadening of spectral lines.” Id. The Examiner found Sokol does not
disclose “particular control” of “‘at least one of laser energy, laser beam
diameter at a work piece, rise time, or pulse width’” (id. at 5 (citing col. 3, ll.
41-53; col. 7, lines 48 et seq.)). The Examiner found Neiheisel discloses
parameters for a pulsed laser, and concluded that it would have been obvious
to use these parameters to provide a laser apparatus capable of real time
quality control. Ans. 6 (citing col. 6, ll. 23-43).
Sokol discloses an apparatus for monitoring laser shock processing of
a workpiece, which detects spectral emissions from the workpiece or from a
layer applied to the workpiece as a result of being subjected to a laser pulse.
Id. at col. 2, ll. 27-31 and ll. 35-36; col. 5, ll. 13-21. The spectral emissions
can be correlated to the pressure pulse applied to the workpiece, residual
stress in the workpiece, and fatigue life of the workpiece. Id. at col. 2, ll. 31-
34. Sokol discloses that “[a]n indirect measurement of pressure may be
done using plasma emissions and spectroscopic techniques. Stark
broadening of spectral lines occurs with increasing electron density due to
the associated increase in average local electric field.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 50-54.
Sokol also discloses that “spectral line broadening and/or shifts in selected
elemental emission lines, combined with temperature measurements, should
provide a measure of the plasma pressure.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 59-62.
Sokol also discloses that the pressure history of the plasma may be
measured and correlated to residual stress in the workpiece. Col. 8, ll. 10-
13. After processing the workpiece, the residual stress profile of the
workpiece is measured. Id. at col. 8, ll. 13-18. Then, “[a] correlation or
look-up table is created which maps plasma pressure and temperature
histories to the x-ray diffraction-measured residual stress profile. Once this
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

6
correlation table has been created, one can look up the predicted residual
stress profile from the empirical data of temperature and pressure temporal
histories.” Id. at col. 8, ll. 18-23. One can determine a predicted residual
stress profile, or fatigue life, of a workpiece from the observed laser
processing conditions in real time. Id. at col. 9, ll. 17-19. “If the predicted
residual stress profile, fatigue life, or pressure pulse is not within a
predetermined or desired range, one can now reprocess the workpiece, as
necessary.” Id. at col. 9, ll. 22-25 (emphasis added).
We find persuasive Appellants’ contention that Sokol’s description
stating “a feature of the spectral emissions or acoustic emissions are
correlated to the shock pressure applied to the workpiece” is not a disclosure
that Sokol’s laser shock peening system is controlled to alter any parameter
of laser pulse 16 emitted by laser 18 based on measured spectral emissions
from the plasma. Reply Br. 3; see also Sokol, col. 2, 11. 63-67. Sokol
discloses using the measured pressure data to predict the resulting condition
of the workpiece based on the predetermined correlation table and, if the
predicted result is not acceptable, reprocessing the workpiece. Moreover,
Sokol does not appear to disclose that the reprocessing of the workpiece
utilizes any altered parameter(s) for the laser pulse.
In addition, the Examiner did not provide sufficient evidence that
Sokol’s system comprises a “process control system” that “is capable of
process control based upon a comparison of plasma emission measurement
using spectroscopic techniques comprising broadening of spectral lines.”
Ans. 11 (emphasis added). As discussed supra, and noted by Appellants
(Reply Br. 3), Sokol discloses that the system’s operator can decide whether
to reprocess the workpiece. The Examiner did not explain how Sokol’s
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

7
system would be modified to result in the claimed process control system, or
provide an adequate reason having a rational underpinning for making such
modification.
In view of the above, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 27 or its
dependent claim 36.
Claim 41 is directed to a laser shock peening system comprising, inter
alia, “a process control system configured to control, based upon the
comparison, the laser shock peening system to alter a parameter of the laser
to produce a plasma.” We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 41 for
reasons similar to those discussed for claim 27.
Claim 40
Claim 40 is directed to a laser shock peening process monitoring
system comprising, inter alia, “means for verifying proper operation of the
laser peening process based on broadening of the line spectrum about the
emission peak of the radiation emitted by the laser induced plasma.”
Appellants contend that Sokol and Neiheisel fail to disclose the
claimed “means for verifying.” Reply Br. 4. Appellants rely on the same
arguments for claim 40 as those discussed supra regarding claims 27 and 41
(App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-4), and contend that claims 27, 40, and 41 “are
directed toward laser shock peening systems comprising a process control
system (e.g., process control system 16 of FIG. 1) configured to, based upon
spectral analysis and comparison during the laser shock process, alter at least
one parameter of the laser beam used to produce a plasma.” App. Br. 9.
However, unlike claims 27 and 41, claim 40 does not require “alter[ing] at
least one parameter of the laser beam” based on any “comparison.”
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

8
Accordingly, Appellants’ contentions are not commensurate with the actual
language of claim 40.
In addition, it appears that Sokol’s system provides for “verifying
proper operation of the laser shock peening process based on broadening of
the line spectrum about the emission peak of the radiation emitted by the
laser induced plasma.” Sokol discloses using spectral line broadening of the
emission spectrum to determine plasma pressure during processing of
workpieces. Predicted residual stress and fatigue life results are determined
using measured pressure (and/or temperature) history of the plasma and, if a
predicted result is not acceptable, the workpiece can be reprocessed.
Accordingly, in Sokol’s system, proper operation of the laser peening
process can be considered to be verified based on spectral line broadening of
the emission spectrum from the plasma. Appellants have not provided any
persuasive argument as to why Sokol’s system does not satisfy the claimed
“verifying” function.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 40.
Rejections II-XIII
Each of the remaining rejections of dependent claims 28-35 and 37-
39, which depend from claim 27 or 41, relies on the Examiner’s findings for
Sokol in regard to claims 27 and 41. As these findings are not supported by
a preponderance of the evidence, and the Examiner did not provide an
adequate reason with rational underpinnings for modifying Sokol to result in
the process control system recited in claim 27 or 41, we do not sustain
rejections II-XIII.
Appeal 2012-005036
Application 11/849,815

9
DECISION
The rejection of claim 40 is AFFIRMED, and the rejections of claims
27-39 and 41 are REVERSED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Klh/rvb