Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2018

13212025 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 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.
13/212,025 08/17/2011 Steven R. Peters 072056-8076.US00 5429
91854 7590 02/22/2018
Lincoln Electric Company/Perkins COIE LLP
700 Thirteenth Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005-3960
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2018 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):
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, PAUL E. DENNEY,
TERRANCE J. WIKBERG, and MICHAEL D. LATESSA
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,0251
Technology Center 3700
Before: LINDA E. HORNER, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 32-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Lincoln Global, Inc., a subsidiary of Lincoln Electric
Holdings, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed generally to a method of welding with a hot
filler wire and a high intensity energy source. Spec., Abstract. The
invention is directed specifically to measuring a voltage applied between the
filler wire and a workpiece to determine when the filler wire is, or is not, in
contact with the workpiece. Id. at || 5, 31. This information can be used to
help prevent undesired arcing. Id. at || 38—39. Claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter, with the pertinent claim language shown in italics:
1. A method of welding, comprising:
creating a weld puddle with at least one high intensity
energy source;
determining a first upper threshold value for a parameter
of a filler wire heating signal;
determining a second upper threshold value for said filler
wire heating signal to prevent arc creation between a filler wire
and said weld puddle;
heating said filler wire with said filler wire heating signal
from a power source to a temperature such that said filler wire
melts in said weld puddle when said filler wire is in contact with
said weld puddle;
directing said filler wire to said weld puddle such that said
filler wire maintains contact with said weld puddle during a
welding operation;
monitoring a feedback from said filler wire;
maintaining said parameter of said filler wire heating
signal at said first upper threshold value;
shutting off said filler wire heating signal when, based on
said feedback, said second upper threshold value is reached by
said filler wire heating signal such that no arc is generated
between said filler wire and said weld puddle; and
turning on said filler wire heating signal to continue
heating said filler wire.
2
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Manz et al. US 3,483,354 Dec. 9, 1969
Lessmann et al. US 3,924,092 Dec. 2, 1975
Ogasawara et al. US 4,546,234 Oct. 8, 1985
Stol US 4,580,026 Apr. 1, 1986
Hori et al. US 4,904,843 Feb. 27, 1990
Parks et al. US 4,954,691 Sept. 4, 1990
REJECTION
Claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 32—43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over either Lessmann or Stol in combination
with Hori, Manz, and one of Parks or Ogasawara.
OPINION
Appellants argue, as to claim 1, that the cited references do not teach
or suggest:
shutting off said filler wire heating signal when, based on said
feedback, said second upper threshold value is reached by said
filler wire heating signal such that no arc is generated between
said filler wire and said weld puddle.
Appeal Br. 17-19. Appellants further argue that the cited references do not
teach or suggest the similar limitations of independent claims 8, 9, or 12. Id.
at 21-24.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lessmann and Stol teach,
inter alia, a method of welding using a high intensity energy source and a
hot filler wire, but they do not teach the relevant limitation highlighted by
Appellants (“shutting off said filler wire heating signal. . .”). Final Act. 2-
3
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
3. The Examiner then proceeds to discuss the teachings of Hori, Manz,
Parks, and Ogasawara and makes an obviousness determination based on
these combined teachings. Id. at 3—5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Hori teaches that “it is known to prevent an arc between the filler wire and
the base workpiece with a current cutoff circuit. . . when the filler wire gets
separated from a base workpiece.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 7.
Appellants argue that “the arc current cut-off circuit B in Hori is based
on the welding current to tungsten electrode 5 - not the heating current
through filler wire 9.” Appeal Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants assert that
Hori’s current cut-off circuit B is used to prevent arcing by turning off the
transistor 15-5 to prevent the arc current from flowing into the filler wire 9
when the filler wire 9 is separated from the base metal 6 while the tungsten
electrode 5 is positive. Id. (citing Hori col. 8:17—39, Figs. 13(a)—(c)). In this
way, Hori controls undesirable current flow of the arc current.
The Examiner states that “[t]his argument is not deemed persuasive
since the need to have the synchronized system in Hori is to prevent arc, and
this arc prevention is controlled by the controlling of the supply power 15 by
the Arc Current Cut-off Circuit B.” Ans. 6. Though it is true that the arc
current cut-off circuit B is within the filler wire heating power supply 15, the
stated purpose of the arc current cut-off circuit B is “to prevent the arc
current from flowing into the filler wire 9 when the filler wire 9 is separated
from the base metal 6.” Hori, col. 7:61—63, Fig. 10 (emphasis added).
Hori’s arc current cut-off circuit B prevents the arc current from flowing to
the filler wire. We further note Hori teaches that the transistor 15-5 is turned
off (i.e., the arc current cut-off circuit B is active) when the arc current
waveform is being generated, but is on (i.e. the arc current cut-off circuit B
4
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
is inactive) when the wire current waveform is generated. Id. at col. 8:17—
39, Figs. 13(a)-(c). The Examiner does not identify any teaching in Hori to
suggest control of the filler wire heating current to prevent arcing.
Concerning Manz, the Examiner finds that it “teaches that it is known
in the art that a spark or arc would occur when the power supplied to a filler
wire (13) is greater than that necessary to melt the wire.” Final Act 3. The
Examiner also finds that Manz teaches using “a controller to balance the
[filler] wire feed speed and the power supply to the [filler] wire so that the
[filler] wire will not spark or cause to arc as power output is reduced or
ramped down.” Id. at 4. As explained below, Manz prevents arcing through
control of the amount of voltage used to heat the filler wire but does not
teach shutting off the voltage to the filler wire.
Manz is directed at improving the TIG (tungsten inert gas) welding
process. Manz, Abstract. Manz teaches moving the heated filler wire to
“the rear of the weld puddle behind the arc” to add material to the weld
puddle, and to deliver it at a steep angle from the workpiece. Id. at col.
3:12—13, 40-44. This allows for separation of voltage used for the heating
of the filler wire from the voltage used to create the molten pool of metal
with the arc “so that the deposition rate [of the filler wire] can be controlled
almost independently of the arc.” Id. at col. 3:3—6. Manz further teaches
that undesired arcing can be prevented by using the above method while also
heating the filler wire with a “voltage . . . well below an arc sustaining
voltage.” Id. at col. 5:7—8.
Thus, Manz does teach of the issue of high heat of the filler wire and
undesired arcing, however, it teaches that this can be solved by lowering the
voltage to “below an arc sustaining voltage.” Thus, Manz also does not
5
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
support a finding that the art suggests control of the heating signal based on
feedback to shut off the heating signal to prevent arcing.
The Examiner finds that “Parks and Osagawa [sic] show it is known
to monitor a feedback signal from a filler wire to further control a supply
power to the filler wire via a voltage/current detector.” Id. at 4. The
Examiner further finds that these feedback systems use threshold values
(that correspond to an arc creation point) to reduce or shutoff the voltage
when the threshold is exceeded, thereby preventing arcing. Id.
However, in response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner restates
the teachings of Parks and Ogasawara as teaching “a feedback signal via the
current/voltage sensor to control a welding signal,” as opposed to “a supply
power to the filler wire.” Id. at 7. The Examiner then clarifies that these
teachings “are related with a welding current and not necessarily with a
[filler wire] heating current.” Id. at 8. Thus, the Examiner appears to agree
with Appellants that the teachings of Parks and Ogasawara are directed to
the use of feedback to shutoff arc voltage, rather than shutting off a filler
wire heating signal. Appeal Br. 19—20.
Nevertheless, the Examiner explains that these teachings “show how
. . . current or voltage values can be evaluated as a feedback signal to further
control the current/power signal which would also be applicable to the
control of the filler wire that can create the arc as shown in Parks and
Ogasawara.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner does not further explain this point
(that Parks and Ogasawara’s teachings “would also be applicable to the
control of the filler wire”) or provide a reason why one of skill in the art
would have found it obvious to “control... the filler wire” heating signal
based on Parks and Ogasawara teaching of “a feedback signal... to control
6
Appeal 2017-000508
Application 13/212,025
a welding signal.^ Nor does the Examiner clearly explain how these
teachings relate to the teachings of Hori and Manz to result in the claimed
invention.
In view of the above discussion, we do not sustain the rejection of the
claims as Appellant has rebutted the rejection by showing that the Examiner
failed to articulate adequate reasons to combine the prior art teachings in the
manner claimed.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, 12, and 32-43 is reversed.
REVERSED
7