Ex Parte Tanaka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2014

11790004 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2014)

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.
11/790,004 04/23/2007 Daisuke Tanaka 48638-0013 7974
7590 07/31/2014
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
Suite 1100
1500 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1209
EXAMINER
PURINTON, BROOKE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2014 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 DAISUKE TANAKA
__________

Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
3, 5–10, and 12–23. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus and method for
recognizing an irradiation-enabled area of a beam irradiating device, such as
a laser processing apparatus using a laser beam (Spec. ¶ [0002]).

Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

2
Claims 6, 10, and 15 are illustrative:
6. A method of positioning a beam irradiating device configured to
change an irradiating direction of a beam of a laser welding robot by
determining an irradiation-enabled area of the beam irradiating device in
which the beam irradiating device can be positioned to irradiate a plurality
of points along a processing course of a work piece, comprising:
establishing a cone-shaped region based on a focal length of the beam
and an angle range from one point along a processing course of a work
piece, the cone-shaped region including a plane on a bottom surface thereof
and a vertex coinciding with the one point along the processing course,
wherein the height of the cone-shaped region equals the focal length;
determining the bounds of the irradiation-enabled area of the beam
within the bottom surface of the cone-shaped region;
forming a plurality of the irradiation-enabled areas based on a
plurality of points spaced apart from each other by a resolution distance
along the processing course;
combining the irradiation-enabled areas into a combined irradiation-
enabled area with respect to the entire processing course; and
positioning the beam irradiating device along an optimum moving
path in the combined irradiation-enabled area, without requiring that the
moving path track the processing course, such that all points in the
processing course are processed in a minimum amount of time or with a
minimum amount of movement of the beam irradiating device.

10. An apparatus for determining an irradiation–enabled area of a
beam irradiated from a beam irradiating device of a laser welding robot, the
beam irradiating device being configured to change an irradiating direction
of the beam, comprising:
an input means for inputting a focal length of the beam and a
characteristic dimension of the irradiation-enabled area; and
a computing means for:
establishing the irradiation-enabled area located at a distance of the
focal length from one point along a processing course of a work piece and
based on the inputted focal length and characteristic dimension of the
irradiation-enabled area;
forming a plurality of the irradiation-enabled areas based on points
spaced apart from each other by a resolution distance along the processing
course;
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

3
combining the irradiation-enabled areas into a combined irradiation-
enabled area with respect to the entire processing course; and
establishing an optimum moving path of the beam irradiating device
within the combined irradiation-enabled area, without requiring that the
moving path track the processing course, such that all points in the
processing course are processed in a minimum amount of time or with a
minimum amount of movement of the beam irradiating device.

15. A method of determining a moving path of a beam irradiating
device of a laser welding robot when processing a work piece, the beam
irradiating device being capable of changing an irradiating direction of a
beam, comprising:
establishing the bounds of an irradiation-enabled area corresponding
to a focal length of the beam such that when the beam irradiating device is
located anywhere within the irradiation-enabled area the beam can irradiate
one point along a processing course, wherein the work piece is processed at
one point by the beam irradiated from the beam irradiating device;
forming a plurality of the irradiation-enabled areas based on points
spaced apart from each other by a resolution distance along the processing
course;
combining the irradiation-enabled areas into a combined irradiation-
enabled area with respect to the entire processing course; and
establishing an optimum moving path of the beam irradiating device
within the combined irradiation-enabled area, without requiring that the
moving path track the processing course, such that all points in the
processing course are processed in a minimum amount of time or with a
minimum amount of movement of the beam irradiating device.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 3, 5–9 and 15–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Gmeiner (US 2004/0111185 A1, published
June 10, 2004) in view of Menin (US 2005/0263499 A1, published
Dec. 1, 2005), and Mccrackin et al. (US 2007/0005179 A1, published
Jan. 4, 2007).
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

4
2. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gmeiner in view of Rippl et al. (US 2007/0199929 A1, published
Aug. 30, 2007), and Mccrackin.
3. Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Gmeiner in
view of Rippl, Mccrackin, and Menin.

REJECTION (1)
Appellant argues claims 6 and 15 separately.
Claims 6 and 15
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that the combined
teachings of Gmeiner, Menin, and Mccrackin would have suggested the
methods of claims 6 and 15? We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Gmeiner, Menin
and Mccrackin are located on pages 4-6 of the Answer.
Appellant argues that Gmeiner does not disclose how the “‘mobility
tube’ B” is determined such that there is no basis for the assertion that
Gmeiner teaches steps 1 to 3 of claims 1 or 15 (App. Br. 9, 15). Regarding
claim 6, Appellant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
need to conduct undue experimentation to determine how to determine
mobility tube B” (App. Br. 9).
As noted by the Examiner (Ans. 16), no evidence has been proffered
to substantiate that undue experimentation would have been required to
“determine the mobility tube B”” of Gmeiner. Appellant’s argument that
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

5
Gmeiner fails to teach steps 1 to 3 of the claimed process is not persuasive
because the Examiner relies on Menin to teach features of those steps (Ans.
4–5). Moreover, Gmeiner teaches that the mobility tube represents a region
determined by the maximum amplitude of the characteristic movements of
the tool with respect to the degrees of freedom of the device (Gmeiner ¶
[0016]). Gmeiner further teaches that B in Figure 3 represents the
movement path of tool tip (TCP) along the workpiece (Gmeiner ¶ [0040]).
In other words, Gmeiner teaches the tool tip which holds the laser travels
along a set path on the workpiece and the path includes a region of deviation
around the path.
The Examiner finds that Gmeiner’s mobility tube constitutes a
volume, not an area because Gmeiner discloses that the mobility tube is
determined by the maximum amplitude of the characteristic movements of
the tool with respect to the degrees of freedom of the device (Ans. 16).
Appellant contends that this finding is mistaken because Gmeiner discloses
that region B represents the “area” that may be reached and machined by the
device (Reply Br. 3). Appellant contends that Gmeiner’s paragraphs 37–38
disclosure relates to the degrees of freedom F7 to F9 which relate to the
rotational movement or focusing degree of the optics, not to three-
translational directions that form a volume. Id. at 2.
Appellant’s argument is contradicted by the express teaching of
Gmeiner that the region B is a “mobility tube” which by definition is
cylindrical (i.e., three-dimensional volume). Gmeiner further discloses that
the robot moves along movement path B’ which deviates from movement
path B of the tool tip (TCP) (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). The deviation B is
described by Gmeiner as being the maximum amplitude of the tool 3 in its
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

6
three degrees of freedom F7–F9 (¶ [0041]). In other words, the “mobility
tube” B” is determined by both both rotational and translational movement
of the robot, tool tip, and focusing optics. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Gmeiner teaches determining a volume in which to control
the robot, tool tip and focusing optics of the laser on a workpiece.
Appellant argues that Menin does not expressly teach changing the
focal length of the of the beam and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that when the angle variation of the tool during pivoting of the
head is sufficiently small and/or when the distance between the weld head
and the workpiece is sufficiently large, the beam will remain nominally
focused on the welding path (App. Br. 9, 16).
The Examiner finds and Appellant does not contest that Menin
teaches forming a cone-shaped region based on the laser beam focal length
(Ans. 5). Although Appellant contends that Menin does not teach the cone-
shaped region is based upon focal length such that the height of the cone-
shaped region is the focal length (Reply Br. 3), the preponderance of the
evidence favors the Examiner’s finding that Menin’s focused beam
constitutes a cone-shaped region with a height of a focal length of the beam.
Menin’s disclosure of a “focused beam” on a workpiece to form a weld
constitutes a disclosure of a beam having a focal length. Menin discloses
that the focusing head 4 focuses a laser beam onto a welding spot or area (¶
[0023]). Menin further discloses that the focused beam shifts along the
surface to be welded as the robot moves the focusing head (¶ [0027]). We
understand Menin to teach that the focused beam is oriented so that the laser
beam hits the workpiece at the desired focal length for the device in order to
effect welding of the material. Appellant contends that Menin’s focused
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

7
beam is not at a focal length, but given Menin’s disclosure of the purpose
and positioning of the laser to cause the metal to be welded, the laser light
ends at its focal length. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we agree with the
Examiner that Menin would have changed the focal length of the laser beam
as the distance of the focusing head to the surface to be welded varies during
welding.
Appellant’s argument that the change in angle of Menin’s focusing
head 4 would be minimal such that the beam would have been nominally
focused and not required a change in focal length is not persuasive for the
following reasons. First, claim 6 does not require a change in the focal
length. Second, the movement of Menin’s laser beam across the surface of
the object to be welded would have resulted in a change in the focal length
as noted by the Examiner. This is especially true because of Menin’s goal
for providing a good weld to the region. Third, no evidence has been
provided by Appellant, but only mere attorney arguments, that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have changed the focal length despite
Menin’s teachings referred to above by the Examiner.
Regarding Mccrackin, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s cited
portions of Mccrackin have nothing to do with forming a plurality of
irradiation-enabled areas, within the bottom surface of a cone-shaped region
based on a focal length and an angle range of a tool using a point on the
processing path as a vertex (App. Br. 10). Appellant contends that
Mccrackin does not relate specifically to laser machining or welding
equipment and does not teach combining irradiation-enabled areas (App. Br.
10–11).
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

8
As with Appellant’s arguments regarding Gmeiner and Menin,
Appellant’s arguments regarding Mccrackin attacks the references teaching
individually instead of addressing what the combined teachings would have
suggested to the ordinary artisan. We find the Examiner to rely on
Mccrackin for the general teaching of optimizing the movement of a robotic
device by selection of an optimal path for workpiece (Ans. 18). Indeed, the
Examiner finds that Mccrackin teaches that the multiple areas of the region
or path discussed in Mccrackin’s paragraphs 67 and 68 become a set of
locations or regions (i.e., a section) as discussed in paragraph 69 of
Mccrackin (Ans. 18). However, the Examiner further finds that Mccrackin’s
teachings coupled with Gmeiner’s teaching of a mobility tube B would have
spurred one of ordinary skill in the art to create a similar combination region
with the robotic apparatus of Gmeiner and Menin (Ans. 18). Appellant does
not respond to these reasonable findings and conclusion of the Examiner
(Reply Br. generally).
On this record we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 6
and 15 over Gmeiner, Menin, and Mccrackin.

Claims 9 and 16
Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and recites “establishing two bottom
surfaces corresponding to maximum and minimum focal lengths of the
beam, wherein each irradiation-enabled area comprises a portion of cone-
shaped region disposed between the bottom surfaces.”
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and recites
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

9
wherein the beam irradiating device is configured to change the
focal length of the beam outputted from an oscillator of the
beam irradiating device within a desired range from a minimum
focal length to a maximum focal length, the method further
comprising:
establishing each irradiation-enabled area as a portion of
a cone-shaped region bounded by the maximum and minimum
focal lengths such that when the beam irradiating device is
located anywhere within the irradiation-enabled area the beam
can irradiate one point along the processing course.
Appellant argues that Menin does not teach a minimum and maximum
focal length of the beam may be determined and utilized in order to
determine the optimum moving path for the beam (App. Br. 11). Appellant
contends that Menin only teaches varying the focusing direction of the beam
as the weld head moves a different speed than the weld bead is laid down.
Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not satisfied his burden of
providing a basis in fact or technical reasoning to establish that the Menin
inherently discloses such features (App. Br. 11–12). Appellant contends that
the Examiner’s annotated version of Menin’s Figure 2 included in the
Advisory Action dated August 15, 2011, confuses minimum and maximum
focal length that would be required for a region on a substrate to be welded
with a minimum and maximum focal length that are characteristics of the
beam irradiating device itself and define the bounds of capabilities of the
device (App. Br. 12). The Examiner annotation of Menin’s Figure 2 is
shown below:
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

10

The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion. As shown in the Examiner’s annotated figure above, as the
robot moves Menin’s focusing head across the surface being welded, the
focal length of the laser would change between a maximum focal length and
a minimum focal length (Ans. 19). The Examiner finds that the weld
enabled area is based upon the focal length of the beam, and thus it would
have been an obvious parameter to ensure focus. Id. Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Gmeiner, Menin, and
Mccrackin would have suggested using the maximum and minimum focal
lengths as a variable in setting a desired welding path.
The Examiner properly finds that Appellant’s argument that the
maximum and minimum focal lengths are directed to a characteristic of the
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

11
device is directed to unclaimed subject matter (Ans. 20). The claim only
requires establishing a maximum and minimum focal length of the beam.
Regarding claim 16, Appellant contends that Gmeiner, Menin, and
Mccrackin fail to teach or suggest a “‘cone-shaped region’” (App. Br. 17).
Appellant contends that Menin describes a two-dimensional process, not a
three-dimensional process such as is required to meet a cone-shaped area
(Reply Br. 4–5).
Although Appellant is correct that Menin teaches oscillating the
focusing head around one axis 8 in Figure 1, Menin further teaches that the
wrist of the anthropomorphous robot has six axes that the elements turnably
rotate and translate around (Menin ¶ [0022]). Menin further instructs that
the control 2 can control the motors so as to bring the wrist of the robot “to
any point in a spatial volume having giving shape and size.” Id. Therefore,
even though the focusing head oscillates around a single axis, the robot
permits the focusing head attached to the wrist to be positioned at any point
in a spatial volume, which would include a cone shape.
Appellant’s arguments do not convince us of error in the Examiner’s §
103 rejection of claim 9 and 16 over Gmeiner, Menin, and Mccrackin.

REJECTION (2): § 103 over Gmeiner in view of Mccrackin and Rippl
Appellant argues that Rippl fails to teach or suggest inputting a focal
length and characteristic dimensions of the irradiation-enabled area (App.
Br. 13). Appellant contends that Rippl merely teaches inputting
Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

12
characteristics of the workpiece and then works with a fixed or variable
focal length. Id.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to address
or show specific error with the Examiner’s stated rejection. The Examiner
finds that Gmeiner teaches an irradiating device configured to change an
irradiating direction of the beam based on a focal length of the beam and
characteristic dimension of the irradiation-enabled area (Ans. 7–8). The
Examiner finds that Gmeiner fails to teach an input means for inputting
characteristics of the irradiation-enabled area (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds
that Rippl discloses input means for inputting characteristics of an
irradiation-enabled area (Ans. 8). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to modify Gmeiner’s apparatus to include Rippl’s input
means in order to allow a user to input parameters for the operation and
allow more control in order to avoid problems (Ans. 8).
As explained by the Examiner, Rippl is not relied upon for inputting a
focal length (Ans. 20). Rather, Rippl is relied upon for inputting various
characteristics of the irradiation area, which one of ordinary skill in the art
would have known would include maximum and minimum focal lengths
(Ans. 20). The Examiner makes further findings regarding the teachings of
Gmeiner and Rippl on page 21 of the Answer, but Appellant has not
contested or addressed any of these findings (Reply Br. generally).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 10
over Gmeiner in view of Rippl and Mccrackin.

Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

13
REJECTION (3): Claim 12 § 103 over Gmeiner, Menin, Rippl, and
Mccrackin
Appellant contends that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest a
computing means extracting a portion of the combined irradiation-enabled
areas disposed between the maximum and minimum focal lengths of the
beam (App. Br. 14). Appellant further argues that Menin does not teach an
input means for maximum and minimum focal lengths (App. Br. 14).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because they fail to address
or show error in the Examiner’s stated rejection. The Examiner relies on
Menin to teach the computing means for extracting a portion of the
combined irradiation-enabled areas disposed between the maximum and
minimum focal lengths of the beam (Ans. 9). Appellant has not addressed
these findings of the Examiner. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Menin
teaches an input means for maximum and minimum focal lengths (Ans. 9).
For reasons discussed supra with regard to claim 9, we find Appellant’s
argument regarding the maximum and minimum focal lengths unpersuasive.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 12
over Gmeiner, Menin, Rippl and Mccrackin.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 3, 5–10, and 12–
23.

Appeal 2012-009186
Application 11/790,004

14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

cdc