Ex Parte Sigler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2017

13309825 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017)

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.
13/309,825 12/02/2011 David R. Sigler P016074-RD-SDJ 5680
60770 7590 10/23/2017
General Motors Corporation
c/o REISING ETHINGTON P.C.
P.O. BOX 4390
TROY, MI 48099-4390
EXAMINER
MAYE, AYUB A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2017 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):
stevens@reising.com
U S PTOmail @ reising. com
USPTOmail@gmx.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID R. SIGLER and MICHAEL J. KARAGOULIS
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
Technology Center 3700
Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WOODS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David R. Sigler and Michael J. Karagoulis (“Appellants”) appeal from
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to an “improvement in the formation of
resistance spot welds in stack aluminum-base alloy workpieces.” Spec. 11.
In particular, Appellants’ invention purports to improve resistance spot
welding in aluminum-based alloys by varying the current flows and times in
three separate stages. Id. These three stages of varying current flow and
time are described as: (1) the Conditioning Stage {id. Tflf 11, 41), (2) the
Shaping Stage {id. H 13, 43), and (3) the Sizing Stage {id. H 15, 47).
Appellants allege to have discovered that “the three-stage weld schedule of
this invention more reliably produces good welds, and this result is attained
over the formation of many welds[, and that] less power is consumed.” Id. 1
16.
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims, and claim 1 is
reproduced below with emphases added to particular limitations at issue in
this appeal.
1. A method of forming resistance spot welds on
aluminum-based alloy workpieces, the method comprising:
forming a stack of two or more sheets of aluminum-based
alloy workpieces, the stacked workpieces having faying surfaces
at a resistance weld site and opposing outer surfaces at the weld
site;
pressing weld faces of opposing resistance weld electrodes
against the outer surfaces of the workpieces at the weld site; and
while pressing the weld faces against the workpieces,
passing a first stage weld current between the electrodes
and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for a first
period of milliseconds, the current being increased to a first stage
current value that reduces the electrical resistance between the
weld faces to a stable resistance value and heats the workpieces
for engagement with the weld faces without melting of the
workpieces at their faying surfaces, and then, momentarily
2
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
reducing current flow to zero with the electrodes still pressed
against the surfaces of the workpieces;
passing a second stage weld current between the
electrodes and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for
a second period of milliseconds, the peak current being increased
to a second stage current value, larger than the first stage current
value, for initiating molten weld nugget formation at the faying
surfaces of the weld site, and, reducing current flow with the
electrodes still pressed against the surfaces of the workpieces;
passing a third stage weld current between the electrodes
and through the workpieces at the weld site lasting for a third
period of milliseconds, the current being at a third stage rms
current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value,
for completing molten weld nugget formation at the faying
surfaces of the weld site, the third stage being longer than the
second stage, and, again, stopping current flow for cooling of the
weld site and solidification of the weld nugget;
and then removing the weld faces of the opposing weld
electrodes from contact with the outer surfaces of the
workpieces.
Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jochi (US 6,320,774 B2, issued Nov. 20,
2001) and Sigler (US 2009/0127232 Al, published May 21, 2009). Final
Act. 3.
II. Claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka (US
8,502,105 B2, issued Aug. 6, 2013). Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Jochi and Sigler
Examiner’s Rejection
In rejecting claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as unpatentable over
Jochi and Sigler, the Examiner finds that “Jochi discloses a method of
forming resistance spot welds on alloy workpieces.” Final Act. 3 (citing
Jochi, Figs. 1, 2a, 2b, and 11). To help illustrate the Examiner’s findings,
we reproduce Figure 1 of Jochi, below:
FSG.1
Figure 1 of Jochi depicts a block diagram of a power supply for
resistance welding. Jochi, col. 3,11. 31—34. According to the Examiner,
Jochi’s method comprises forming two or more sheets of alloy workpieces
46, 48, and pressing the weld faces with pressing unit 40. See Final Act. 3
(citing Jochi, Abstr., col. 4,11. 56—68). The Examiner further finds that
Jochi’s method passes a first stage current, second stage current, and third
stage current between electrodes 34, 36, citing Figures 2A and 2B. Id. at 3—
4. To illustrate these findings, we reproduce Figures 2A and 2B, below:
4
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
FIG.2A 54
{ s c m #|cTom6j
[ (S S T) F“8 OH %
j SO WELD’S COOL WELDS HOLD
I loo/M iS-Ooo| SMS SMS [oqoqj ms
I heat SMS SS§S a
| {CONTROL)
i
F1G.2B
i SCH#Soj]
; (SET) F«5CH*
| SQ WELD 1 COOL WE IDS
s LlJlPj CIM CllAp] Clj'ij
I HEAT [/MSI * ZHYM
j (CONTROL)
i WELDSiF-SO. OHs CVCtE^OI
| W£LD2 s F«8 0. 6 H *. CYCLE^Oi
HOLD
l„..r.sS
54
/
f i
nn 5>
A
Jochi describes these Figures as illustrating setting screens (Jochi, col.
3,11. 35—36) that include a first weld time (WELD 1), a cooling time
(COOL), and a second weld time (WELD 2), including current values
(HEAT) (id. at col. 5,11. 33—45). The Examiner relies on Figures 2A and 2B
for disclosing, “the third stage being longer than the second stage.” Final
Act. 4.
In a Advisory Action subsequent to the Final Action, the Examiner
also found that Jochi’s Figures 13 A and 13B show the claimed “three
cycles.” Adv. Act. 2 (dated Nov. 30, 2015). To illustrate this finding, we
reproduce Figures 13A and 13B, below:
5
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
<50Hz>
Jochi describes these Figures as “waveform diagrams showing the
secondary AC frequency/cycle setting method of a variant of the
embodiment [of Figure 14].” Jochi, col. 3,1. 65—col. 4,1. 2; see also id. at
Fig. 14 (disclosing a setting screen similar to that shown in Figures 2A and
2B). According to the Examiner, the above Figures 13A and 13B show the
claimed “three sequences or processes and three cycles.” Id.
Appellants ’ Argument
In contesting the rejection, Appellants argue, “no combination of
[Jochi and Sigler] teaches or suggests the methods specified in independent
claims 1 and 16 with their required three-stage current flow management. ”
Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). We agree.
6
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
Our Analysis
The claims recite, inter alia:
(1) “a first stage weld current . . . [that] heats the
workpieces . . . without melting of the workpieces”;
(2) “a second stage weld current... for initiating molten
weld nugget formation”; and
(3) “a third stage weld current ... at a third stage rms
current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value.”
Appeal Br. 18 (claim 1), 21 (claim 16) (Claims App.).
Although Jochi’s Figure 2B appears to disclose two stages of weld
current, we are not persuaded that Jochi discloses three stages of weld
current, as recited in the claims. To emphasize this deficiency, we reproduce
Jochi’s Figure 2B, below:
FIG.2B 54
SCH#O0 1j
{SET} F = :50Hz
SQ WELD 1 COOL WE LD 2
[imp] L-J§Pj CIJCpJ L_j!pj
HEAT
(CONTROL)
[loo] Zllfll
WELD1:F=80 . OHz CYCLE ~Q 1
WELD2:F-60 . 6 Hz CYCLE”04
HOLD
j£ Q Oj
r -
L., ms
A
We find that Figure 2B appears to disclose a first stage of weld
current of 600 Amps for a duration of 20 ms, followed by a 30 ms cooling
period, after which a second stage of weld current of 750 Amps for a
duration of 66 ms is applied. See Jochi, col. 6,1. 62—col. 7,1. 10 (describing
Fig. 2B); see also id. at col. 5,11. 34-45 (describing first and second current
values and weld times of similar Fig. 2A). Contrary to the Examiner’s
findings, however, we are not persuaded that this disclosure supports a
7
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
finding that a third stage weld current exists, let alone one where “the third
stage [is] longer than the second stage.” Final Act. 4 (citing Jochi Figs. 2A,
2B). We also disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Jochi’s Figures 13A
and 13B disclose the claimed “third stage weld current.” See Adv. Act. 2 In
particular, Figures 13A and 13B are waveform diagrams of a different
embodiment of Jochi’s invention, namely, the setting screen of Figure 14,
which also fails to disclose a third stage weld current. See Jochi, col. 3,
1. 65—col. 4,1. 2; see also id. at Fig. 14 (disclosing only WELD 1 and WELD
2, or, at most, two stage weld currents.).
Furthermore, in addressing the claimed limitation, the “first stage
weld current. . . heats the workpieces . . . without melting of the
workpieces,” the Examiner cites to Jochi’s disclosure at column 8, lines 1—
45. Final Act. 3. However, we find nothing in this disclosure to support a
finding that Jochi’s first stage weld current heats the workpieces without
melting, as recited in the claims. In particular, Jochi’s Figure 2B appears to
disclose a “first stage weld current” of 600 Amps, but the record does not
support a finding that this current heats the workpieces without melting the
workpieces.
Moreover, in addressing the claimed limitation, “passing a third stage
weld current... at a third stage rms current value, smaller than the second
stage peak current value,” the Examiner finds that the following description
discloses this limitation:
The control unit 32 then measures the hold time [HOLD]
by means of the predetermined timer and thereafter ceases to
issue the weld force control signal FC to the pressing unit 40 (to
allow the signal FC to go low), to thereby release the workpieces
W from the compression of the electrodes 34 and 36. A nugget
8
Appeal 2017-000811
Application 13/309,825
is formed at a weld portion between the workpieces W, i.e., two
metallic members 46 and 48 to obtain a metallurgical joint.
Jochi, col. 9,11. 45—50; Final Act. 4.
We find nothing in this disclosure to support a finding that a “third
stage weld current” exists, let alone one that exists “at a third stage rms
current value, smaller than the second stage peak current value,” as found by
the Examiner. See id.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1—
3,7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as unpatentable over Jochi and Sigler.
Rejection II: Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka
In rejecting dependent claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as
unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka, the Examiner relies on the same
unsupported findings discussed above under Rejection I. See Final Act. 7.
For the same reasons that we do not sustain Rejection I, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as unpatentable
over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka.
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1—3, 7, 11, 15—17, and 20 as
unpatentable over Jochi and Sigler.
We reverse the rejection of claims 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 as
unpatentable over Jochi, Sigler, and Tanaka.
REVERSED
9