`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/820,557
`
`03/04/2013
`
`Junji Fujiwara
`
`MAT-10584US
`
`6854
`
`05/22/2018 —RATNERPRESTIA m
`7590
`52473
`2200 RENAIS SANCE BLVD
`CALVETTL FREDERICK F
`S UITE 350
`KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
`
`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 @ratnerprestia. com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte .IUNJI FUJIWARA,
`ATSUHIRO KAWAMOTO, and MASARU KOWA1
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`Application 13/820,557
`Technology Center 3700
`
`Before STEVEN D.A. MCCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE,
`and LYNNE H. BROWNE, 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—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.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`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.
`
`A consumable electrode arc welding control
`1.
`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.
`
`§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fujiwara (US 2012/0111842 A1, pub. May 10,
`
`2012), Narayanan (US 2006/0070983 A1, pub. Apr. 6, 2006), and Huismann
`
`(US 7,102,099 B2, iss. Sept. 5, 2006).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`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. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
`
`Claims 1 3—6 and 11—13
`
`Appellants raise three principal arguments. First, Appellants argue
`
`that “the claims reguire 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 11 11; Ans. 8—9 (citing id).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`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. 11 7; see also id. 1H] 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 11 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 11 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.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`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 1] 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 fl 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 1] 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. l—3.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`Application 13/820,557
`
`Figure 14 of Narayanan 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 1H] 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.
`
`
`
`Appeal 2017-008302
`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 CPR. § 1.136(a)(1)(iV).
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
