Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
New claims 26-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention (Species II-Figures 7 and 8 containing an electrically insulating coating).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 206952362) in view of Yue (US 10,286,607).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for laser welding a first component (30) to a second component (41), comprising: placing the first component on the second component (as shown in Fig. 3), applying a welding mask (20) comprising a flat contact surface to the first component to press said first component onto the second component (as shown in Fig. 3; p.0047), said welding mask comprising a through-passage (21) for a laser beam (p.0046), defining a welding area on the first component (p.0046), the contact surface at least partially surrounding said through-passage, emitting a laser beam by a head (10) into said through-passage of the welding mask, in order to form a weld bead joining the first component to the second component in said welding area (p.0046-0047; as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the welding mask is rigid and rigidly joined to the laser head (p.0050) and in that a focal length of the laser is constant (p.0047; p.0050).
Wu fails to disclose wherein the contact surface extends discontinuously around the welding area, the contact surface comprising a plurality of coplanar contact regions separated by hollows, the plurality of coplanar contact regions being regularly distributed around the welding area so as to press homogeneously the first component onto the second component, and wherein the hollows separating the plurality of coplanar contact regions provide passageways for removal of fumes generated during welding away from the welding area.
Yue teaches a method of laser welding wherein the contact surface (contact surface of welding mask 602, 620, 630) extends discontinuously around the welding area (as shown in Fig. 6A-6C below), the contact surface comprising a plurality of coplanar contact regions (610, 622, 632 between the hollows 612, 624, 634; as shown in Fig. 6A-6C below) separated by hollows (612, 624, 634), the plurality of coplanar contact regions being regularly distributed around the welding area so as to press homogeneously the first component onto the second component (as shown in Fig. 6A-6C), and wherein the hollows separating the plurality of coplanar contact regions provide passageways for removal of fumes generated during welding away from the welding area (the hollows 612, 624, 634 are capable of removing fumes during welding).
[AltContent: textbox (Hollows)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Contact Regions)]
PNG
media_image1.png
272
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact area of the welding mask of Wu, with Yue, by providing a plurality of coplanar contact regions that are separated by hollows, as an alternative to the shape of the contact area of the welding mask of Wu. POSITA would have known that providing a plurality of coplanar contact regions around the welding area would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results so as to assure proper contact between the mask and the first component and at the same time creating the desired shape on the welding area.
Regarding claim 2, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the first and second components and the welding mask remain fixed during the formation of the entire weld bead (Wu; p.0050; as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the laser head comprises a programmable optical focusing system comprising two mirrors that can be oriented for positioning the laser beam at a determined location of the welding area (Wu; galvanometer or rotating mirror; p.0049; p.0069).
Regarding claim 4, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the welding mask has an external frustoconical shape (Wu; as shown in Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the through-passage has a frustoconical wall (Wu; as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the weld bead has a closed shape (Wu; p.0049).
Regarding claim 8, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the contact surface extends over at least three-quarters of a perimeter of the welding area (Wu; as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the contact surface is comprised of at least three coplanar contact areas spaced apart from one another (Yue; as shown in Fig. 6A-6C).
Regarding claim 13, Wu and Yue combined teach the method as set forth above, wherein the first component is a metal current collector (Wu; connecting piece 30; p.0004) and the second component is a metal-ion electrochemical accumulator (Wu; battery pole; p.0004).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Yue as set forth above, and further in view of Jiang (US 2019/0140220).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wu and Yue combined teach all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the head emits a pulsed laser beam or a continuous laser beam.
Jiang teaches a method of laser welding wherein the head emits a pulsed laser beam or a continuous laser beam (p.0058).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam of Wu and Yue, with Jiang, by providing a pulsed laser beam or a continuous laser beam, to comply with welding/user requirements depending on the application. POSITA would have known that providing a pulsed laser beam or a continuous laser beam would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as processing flexibility and accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “The slot 20a of Savitski is unitary, defines the weld zone, and serves no fume-removal function-it is the region being welded, not a vent around it… Because Savitski does not disclose a "plurality of hollows" as claimed-that is, discrete venting passages external to the welding area and between coplanar contact regions-Savitski cannot supply the missing limitation of Wu… Wu explicitly discloses that its pressure nozzle 20 must maintain a continuous, sealed contact with the connecting piece 30 in order to "block" metal particles generated during welding and "prevent the splash of the metal particles" and "insulation failure" caused by their escape (Wu, para. [0042]; CN translation p. 6). This is the core functional purpose of Wu's pressure nozzle design. Wu's specification further discloses that the light-transmitting hole 21 has a variable cross-section that narrows in the emission direction specifically so that welding chips are "blocked in the light- transmitting holes 21, thereby preventing the welding chips from splashing" (CN translation, p. 8-9). Introducing Savitski's open slot-or, as now claimed, discrete hollows venting fumes away from the welding area-would directly undermine Wu's explicitly stated particle-containment objective. A POSITA reading Wu would understand that any gap or opening in the contact surface would allow metal particles to escape, creating precisely the short-circuit and insulation-failure risks that Wu is designed to prevent. Wu therefore provides a clear disincentive against the very modification the Examiner proposes. This constitutes teaching away, and a combination motivated solely by impermissible hindsight cannot overcome this… A POSITA seeking to improve the metallic welding device of Wu would have no reason to look to a thermoplastic packaging welding system like Savitski. The materials, the debris hazards, and the process physics are entirely different. The Examiner's combination is therefore the product of hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap, rather than a principled analysis of what a POSITA would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention.” on remarks page 9, lines 20-21, page 10, lines 2-4 and 9-13, and page 11, lines 1-9 and 2024. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Yue teaches a method of laser welding wherein the contact surface (contact surface of welding mask 602, 620, 630) extends discontinuously around the welding area (as shown in Fig. 6A-6C above), the contact surface comprising a plurality of coplanar contact regions (610, 622, 632 between the hollows 612, 624, 634; as shown in Fig. 6A-6C above) separated by hollows (612, 624, 634), the plurality of coplanar contact regions being regularly distributed around the welding area so as to press homogeneously the first component onto the second component (as shown in Fig. 6A-6C), and wherein the hollows separating the plurality of coplanar contact regions provide passageways for removal of fumes generated during welding away from the welding area (the hollows 612, 624, 634 are capable of removing fumes during welding). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contact area of the welding mask of Wu, with Yue, by providing a plurality of coplanar contact regions that are separated by hollows, as an alternative to the shape of the contact area of the welding mask of Wu. POSITA would have known that providing a plurality of coplanar contact regions around the welding area would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results so as to assure proper contact between the mask and the first component and at the same time creating the desired shape on the welding area. Also, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Wu and Yue are directed to laser welding using a mask.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 07/24/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights