Katsura Oowaki et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 2, 201913392458 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/392,458 02/24/2012 Katsura Oowaki NAGIHII-PT008 2373 3624 7590 10/02/2019 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18th Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER HOANG, TU BA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3761 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2019 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KATSURA OOWAKI, SHUICHI FUJITA, SHINICHI EBINA, and FUMIO MATSUZAKA ____________ Appeal 2018-002146 Application 13/392,458 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before BRETT C. MARTIN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claim 6 as unpatentable over Matsumoto (JP 2006-082129, issued Mar. 30, 2006),2 Kamei (US 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IHI Inspection & Instrumentation Co. Ltd. Appeal Br. (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed June 29, 2017. 2 We derive our understanding of the Matsumoto reference from a machine translation, which is available in the electronic file wrapper of the underlying application. See Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 3, dated Jan. 25, 2017. All references to the text of Matsumoto are to portions of the translation. Appeal 2018-002146 Application 13/392,458 2 2009/0095720 A1, published Apr. 16, 2009), and Fields (US 6,204,469 B1, issued Mar. 20, 2001); (2) claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann (US 6,713,712 B1, issued Mar. 30, 2004), and Yasuda (US 4,904,842, issued Feb. 27, 1990); and (3) claim 4 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, Yasuda, and Lee (US 2009/0134131 A1, issued May 28, 2009). Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 have been canceled. An Oral Hearing in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.47 was held on September 24, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter “relates to laser welding quality determination method” “used to determine whether the quality of a welding section is good or not while laser welding is performed on metal plates.” Spec. 1:7–10, Figs. 1, 2. Claim 6, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 6. A laser welding quality determination method for determining welding quality of a welding section welded by laser welding, comprising: acquiring an image of the welding section and a region surrounding the welding section by using a high-speed camera; analyzing a spatter count per unit length on a straight line radially extending from a laser irradiation point, an area of a high-luminance region and a keyhole detection frequency in the acquired image as parameters; determining welding quality of the welding section by comparing the analyzed parameters with a comparison table created beforehand; and Appeal 2018-002146 Application 13/392,458 3 displaying a result of the welding quality determination on a monitor. ANALYSIS Obviousness over Matsumoto, Kamei, and Fields Claim 6 Independent claim 6 is directed to a laser welding quality determination method including the step of “analyzing a spatter count per unit length on a straight line radially extending from a laser irradiation point.” Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Matsumoto discloses the method of claim 1 substantially as claimed except “Matsumoto is silent regarding a spatter count per unit length on a straight line radially extending from a laser irradiation point.” See Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner looks to the teachings of Kamei for this limitation. See id. at 4.3 The Examiner further finds that “Matsumoto in view of Kamei is silent regarding analyzing a spatter.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner looks to the teachings of 3 In the Answer, the Examiner cites to Saito (US 2003/0052113 A1, published Mar. 20, 2003) as evidence of “spatter count per unit length [being] known in the art.” Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) 13, dated Oct. 19, 2017. Saito is not part of the rejection from which the Appeal is taken. See Final Act. 2–13. Therefore, our decision does not address the merits of Saito’s teachings. An appeal is taken from the decision of the Examiner twice rejecting the claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.31. As such, we review the decision of the Examiner as set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is taken, as modified by any advisory action and pre-appeal brief conference decision. 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(2) (“For purposes of the examiner's answer, any rejection that relies upon any Evidence not relied upon in the Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory action) shall be designated by the primary examiner as a new ground of rejection”). Appeal 2018-002146 Application 13/392,458 4 Fields for “analyzing a spatter” and finds that “[t]he advantage of the Fields teaching is that the smoke monitored by a sensor and analyzed by a computer is used to predict the weld quality.” Final Act. 13 (citing Fields 2:58–67); see also id. at 4–5 (citing Fields 2:58–67, 15:11–39). In this case, we agree with Appellant that the section of Fields relied on by the Examiner (i.e., Fields 2:58–67) discusses sensors utilized to monitor light, sound, gas, smoke, temperature, etc. and the signals generated by those sensors for analysis by a computer to predict the weld quality, which has nothing to do with “analyzing a spatter count.” See Fields 2:58– 67; see also Appeal Br. 14; Final Act. 4–5, 13. In addition, the only reference to “spatter” in the other section of Fields relied on by the Examiner (i.e., Fields 15:11–39) describes leading angle Θ allowing laser weld head 355 to lag the point on the surface where welding occurs to protect the weld head 355 from contacting the plasma cloud and weld spatter and debris during welding. There is no discussion in this section of Fields about “analyzing a spatter count.” In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner takes the position that “[t]he motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved.” Ans. 14 (citing MPEP 2143, G); see also Appeal Br. 14. However, the Examiner does not apprise us how Fields’ disclosure “implicitly” teaches “analyzing a spatter count,” how “analyzing a spatter count” is “found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,” or how “the nature of the problem to be solved” by Fields is indicative of “analyzing a spatter count.” See Ans. 14; see also Final Act. 4–5, 13. For these reasons, the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the Appeal 2018-002146 Application 13/392,458 5 evidence that the combined teachings of Matsumoto, Kamei, and Fields disclose the laser welding method of claim 6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, and Fields Obviousness over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, and Yasuda or Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, Yasuda, and Lee Claim 3, 4, and 7 The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4, and 7 are each based on the same unsupported findings discussed above with respect to claim 6. See Final Act. 5–10. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Wildmann, Yasuda, or Lee to remedy the deficiencies of Fields. Accordingly, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 6, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, and 7 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, and Yasuda or Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, Yasuda, and Lee. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 6 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, and Fields. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3 and 7 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields, Wildmann, and Yasuda. We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 4 as unpatentable over Matsumoto, Kamei, Fields Wildmann, Yasuda, and Lee. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation