DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 5 May 2026 has been entered.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Specification objection, but the examiner was not persuaded. A new Specification objection has also been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Claim objections. The Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) Claim rejection. The previous 35 USC 112(b) Claim rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new 35 USC 112(a) rejection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. The argument on page 9 of the Arguments filed 5 May 2026 was found to be persuasive. Specifically, it is not clear in the primary reference teaches that the beams partially or fully overlap (claim 1 require that the beams fully overlap). However, one of the previously identified prior art references teaches this limitation. As a result, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
New grounds of rejection are provided in the present Office action, which are not due to the Applicant’s amendments. As a result, the current Office action is in a non-Final status.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 5 May 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 16 has been cancelled
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are pending.
Specification
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/EP2020/059776 and of the German patent application 10 2019 108 837.2 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 6 April 2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 1 October 2021 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the last page of the Specification to disclose: “The filler wire 11 is fed into the molten bath 9 preferably in such a way that the wire 11 touches the smaller laser focal spot area 16.1 or is directed essentially directly at the smaller laser focal spot area 16.1” (lines 5-6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites: “wherein the filler material is supplied in the form of a wire or powder.” Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1. Claim 1 recites: “wherein the filler material is fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area.” It is not clear from the Specification how “powder” can be “fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area.”
For example, the Specification discloses that “the filler wire 11 is fed into the molten bath 9 preferably in such a way that the wire 11 touches the smaller laser focal spot area 16.2 or is directed essentially directly at the smaller laser focal spot area 16.2.” Feeding the filler wire into the smaller laser focal spot area is clear, and it is shown in figs. 1-3 of the Instant Application. However, it is not clear how powder can be fed into the smaller laser focal spot area. Instead, the Specification discloses feeding the gas powder into the “molten bath.” Based on the drawings, it appears that if powder were fed into the molten bath, then the powder would first arrive at beam 6 and would not be able to reach beam 9. In this case, based on the lack of detail provided by the original disclosure, it is determined that the claimed subject matter is not presented in such a way as to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US-20080029498-A1) in view of Both et al. (WO-2017050711-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Bonss et al. (US-6444947-B1), and Maier et al. (DE-10214949-C1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Forrest teaches a method for fusion welding (“welding method,” abstract) comprising:
providing one or more steel sheets (substrates 78 and 80, fig. 6) made of press-hardened steel (“steel,” para 0051), wherein at least one of the steel sheets has a metallic coating which contains aluminum (“aluminum-based (Al) coating,” para 0051), and
laser welding (para 0021) the one or more steel sheets (“substrates 78 and 80,” para 0062; “steel,” para 0051) using at least one laser beam (beams 34 and 36, fig. 6),
wherein the laser welding comprises:
generating with the at least one laser beam (beams 34 and 36, fig. 6), using one or a plurality of optical elements (lenses 38, 46, 72, and collimator 58, fig. 3) a single laser focal spot (key hole 98, fig. 7A; overlapping the beams is not explicitly disclosed for this embodiment), comprising a smaller laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 34; “the first end 102 is formed by the leading beam 34,” para 0055; “the leading beam has a beam diameter in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm,” para 0062; construed as an area for the beam spot of beam 34 of .00785-.1256 mm2) and a larger laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 36; “the rounded second end 104, are formed by the trailing beam 36 ,” para 0055; “the trailing beam 36 has a beam diameter in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 mm,” para 0062; the larger laser focal spot area is construed as an area for the beam spot area of beam 36, which is .1256-.5024 mm2) wherein a laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the smaller laser focal spot area (“the ratio of power of the leading beam 34 compared to the trailing beam 36 is 75:25,” para 0029; “power in the range of 4 kW to 10 kW,” para 0046; construed as a power of 0.75*4-10 kW=3-7.5 kW; divided by an area of .00785-0.1256 mm2, the intensity is calculated to be a range of 2,389-95,541 kW/cm2) is higher than a larger output per surface unit introduced in the larger laser focal spot area (“the ratio of power of the leading beam 34 compared to the trailing beam 36 is 75:25,” para 0029; “power in the range of 4 kW to 10 kW,” para 0046; construed as a power of 0.25*4-10 kW=1-2.5 kW; divided by an area of 0.1256-0.5024 mm2, the intensity is calculated to be a range of 199-1,990 kW/cm2; a range of 2,389-95,541 kW/cm2 for beam 34 is higher than a range of 199-1,990 kW/cm2 for beam 36),
irradiating the one or more steel sheets (top surface of substrate 78, fig. 6) with the smaller laser focal spot (beam 34, fig. 6; “diameter,” para 0062; construed such that beam 34 has a circular beam spot) and the larger laser focal spot (beam 36, fig. 6; “diameter,” para 0062; construed such that beam 36 has a circular beam spot), wherein the larger laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 36) irradiates an area of the one or more steel sheets (circular area heated by beam 36 on the top surface of substrate 78, fig. 6; fig. 7A, which is top-down view of the weld pool shows part of this circular area in rounded end 104, para 0055) and an area of the one or more steel sheets (circular area heated by beam 34 on the top surface of substrate 78, fig. 6; fig. 7A, which is top-down view of the weld pool shows part of this circular area in first end 102, para 0055) irradiated by the smaller laser focal spot area (area heated by beam 34 on the top surface of substrate 78, fig. 6);
moving the single laser focal spot (key hole 98, fig. 7A) across the one or more steel sheets (“substrates 78 and 80 being used,” para 0062) in a welding direction (“Weld Direction,” fig. 7A) to produce a molten bath (molten pool 82, fig. 7A),
wherein, in the welding direction, at least a portion of the larger laser focal spot area follows the smaller laser focal spot area (“The primary method of increasing the second or trailing end 104 of the keyhole 98, however, is to use a trailing beam 36 that has a larger beam diameter or imprint compared to the leading beam 34,” para 0062; construed that trailing beam 36 is behind leading beam 34 as shown in fig. 6), the smaller laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 34, fig. 6) melts (“melted,” para 0042; para 0059) the one or more steel sheets to form the molten bath (molten pool 82, fig. 6), and the larger laser focal spot area homogenizes the molten bath (“the emission of the coating gas before it impinges on a rear surface 104 of the keyhole 98 also reduces the effect of the weld being porous,” para 0060; removing pores 94 from the weld as shown in fig. 6 is construed as making the weld more uniform or homogenous)
and wherein the laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the smaller laser focal spot area (construed as an area for the beam spot of beam 34 of .00785-.1256 mm2) is controlled in such a way that the smaller laser focal spot area generates a deep welding process (leading beam 34 causes “deep penetrations” of “at least 6 mm below a surface of the substrate” in a “deep penetration welding process,” paras 0052-0053; fig. 6), wherein the laser energy per surface unit introduced in the smaller laser focal spot is greater than 1,000 kW/cm2 (the intensity calculated for beam 34 is a range of 2,389-95,541 kW/cm2).
Forrest, figs. 6 and 7A
PNG
media_image1.png
534
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
268
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Forrest does not explicitly disclose one or more steel sheets made of press-hardened steel; a single laser focal spot comprising a smaller laser focal spot area within a larger laser focal spot area; irradiating with the single laser focal spot comprising the smaller laser focal spot within the larger laser focal spot, wherein the larger laser focal spot area irradiates an area that is at least two times larger than an area irradiated by the smaller laser focal spot area; the single laser focal spot comprising the smaller laser focal spot area within the larger laser focal spot area, while feeding filler material into the molten bath, wherein the filler material is fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area; while the laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the larger laser focal spot area is controlled in such a way as to not exceed an energy threshold of 1,000 kW/cm2 for deep welding.
However, Forrest teaches a single laser focal spot (“it should be understood and appreciated that beams 34 and 36 may overlap,” para 0049; construed such that when the beams overlap and there is no inter-beam distance, then there is a single laser focal spot) comprising a smaller laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 34) and a larger laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 36; construed as being a combined area when the beams overlap); irradiating with the single laser focal spot comprising a smaller laser focal spot within a larger laser focal spot (“overlapping the beams 34 and 36,” para 0049), wherein the larger laser focal spot area irradiates an area (“the trailing beam 36 has a beam diameter in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 mm,” para 0062; construed as an area for the beam spot of beam 36 of .1256-.5024 mm2) that is at least two times larger than an area irradiated by the smaller laser focal spot area (“the leading beam has a beam diameter in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm,” para 0062; construed as an area for the beam spot of beam 34 of .00785-.1256 mm2; twice this area is at least .0157-.2512 mm2, which overlaps with the calculated area of beam 36 of .1256-.5024 mm2), the single laser focal spot comprising the smaller laser focal spot area within the larger laser focal spot area (“overlap,” para 0049), while the laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the larger laser focal spot area is controlled in such a way as to not exceed an energy threshold of 1,000 kW/cm2 for deep welding (the intensity for beam 36 is calculated to be a range of 199-1,990 kW/cm2; this range is construed as overlapping with a range of less than 1,000 kW/cm2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the specific embodiment of figs. 5 and 7A, in view of the teachings of fig. 7B of Forrest, by using an inter-beam distance of zero, in order to overlap the beams, because by overlapping the beams, an increase in power density may be achieved which results in the beams more fully engaging the substrates, and because by using a beam spot diameter for beam 36 that is wider than the beam spot diameter for beam 34, the spattering of the coating is minimized while also causing the resultant weld to become less porous, which increases the strength of the weld (Forrest, paras 0049 and 0060; if the area of beam 36 becomes 0.2512-0.5024 mm2, then this change in area results in an intensity for beam 36 of 199-995 kW/ cm2, which is less than 1,000 kW/cm2). Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (Forrest describes the inter-spot distance as being a results-effective variable that can be optimized, para 0040, describes the diameters of the beams as being results-effective variables that can be optimized, paras 0058 and 0062, and describes the power ratio between the beams as one that can be optimized, para 0029, based on tradeoff between deep penetrations from beam 34 and the smoothing of the molten pool by beam 36 to prevent the formation of pores, paras 0053-0054).
Forrest does not explicitly disclose one or more steel sheets made of press-hardened steel; a single laser focal spot comprising a smaller laser focal spot area within a larger laser focal spot area; while feeding filler material into the molten bath, wherein the filler material is fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Both teaches one or more steel sheets made of press-hardened steel (“at least one of the sheets is made of press-hardenable steel,” paras 0003-0004); while feeding filler material (filler wire 8, fig. 1) into the molten bath (molten bath 9, fig. 1).
Both, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
554
752
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Both, by using press-hardenable steel, as taught by Both, for the steel substrates, as taught by Forrest, and by supplying a filler wire 8, as taught by Both, to the molten pool 82, as taught by Forrest, in order to use press-hardenable steel, which has a relatively high tensile strength after being press hardened, and because adding filler wire into the weld results in improved homogenization of the weld melt (Both, paras 0031 and 0046-0047).
Forrest/Both do not explicitly disclose a single laser focal spot comprising a smaller laser focal spot area within a larger laser focal spot area; wherein the filler material is fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bonss teaches a single laser focal spot (focus 6 and focus 2, fig. 3) comprising a smaller laser focal spot area (focus 2, fig. 3) within a larger laser focal spot area (focus 6, fig. 3).
Bonss, figs. 3-4
PNG
media_image4.png
387
661
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
751
398
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Bonss, by fully overlapping beam 34 inside of beam 36, as taught by Forrest, such that beam 34 was formed forward and off-centered of beam 36, as taught by Bonss, in order use a laser beam with a less intensity over a much larger area, keeping a larger area of the bath of melted material warmed up in comparison to when a smaller circular beam spot is used, for the advantage of slowing the solidifying rate over a larger area, thus reducing the cooling rate, so that thermal stresses and gradients can be minimized, preventing the likelihood of hot or cold cracks from forming in the weld (Bonss, column 1, lines 32-47, column 2, lines 2-8; difference between figs. 2 and 3).
Forrest/Both/ Bonss do not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material is fed into the molten bath such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Maier teaches wherein the filler material (wire 5, fig. 5b) is fed into the molten bath (melt pool 6, fig. 5b) such that the filler material is fed directly into the smaller laser focal spot area (“only heated but not yet melted,” para 0046).
Maier, fig. 5b
PNG
media_image6.png
672
516
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Maier, by feeding the filler wire, as taught by Maier, to the beam 34, as taught by Forrest, in order to advantageously melt or liquefy the filler material completely by the high intensity beam, for the advantage of controlling the liquidation of the wire, such that it melts in a localized manner at the keyhole 7, resulting in a narrower seam than when the wire is positioned in front of the high intensity beam (Maier, paras 0012 and 0022).
Regarding claim 2, Forrest teaches wherein the at least one laser beam is substantially free of oscillation during fusion welding (Wed Direction arrow, fig. 6; “the leading beam 34 moves in the welding direction,” para 0053; construed such that there is no oscillation during the movement of beam 34).
Regarding claim 3, Forrest teaches wherein the one or plurality of optical elements (lenses 38, 46, 72, and collimator 58, fig. 3), by which the single laser focal spot (keyhole 98, fig. 7A) is produced (para 0040), is configured such that a position of the smaller laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 34) within the larger laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 36; overlap,” para 0049) is adjustable (“Changing the inter-spot distance requires moving the mirror 40 and focusing lens 72,” para 0040; adjustable using knob 26, para 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Forrest teaches wherein the position of the smaller laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 34) within the larger laser focal spot area (beam spot area of beam 36) is adjusted (para 0040) in a direction running one of parallel (para 0043; fig. 7A) and transverse (not explicitly disclosed) to the welding direction (“Weld Direction,” fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 5, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the larger laser focal spot area has an elongated shape, and wherein a longitudinal axis of the larger focal spot area runs substantially in the welding direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bonss teaches wherein the larger laser focal spot area (focus 6, fig. 3) has an elongated shape (focus 6 has a rectangular shape, fig. 3, which is construed as being an elongated shape), and wherein a longitudinal axis (vertical axis, fig. 3) of the larger focal spot area runs substantially in the welding direction (vertical arrow, fig. 3; column 4, lines 42-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Bonss, by using a rectangular beam spot, as taught by Bonss, for the laser beam 36, as taught by Forrest, in order use a rectangular laser beam with a less intensity over a much larger area, keeping a larger area of the bath of melted material warmed up in comparison to when a smaller circular beam spot is used, for the advantage of slowing the solidifying rate over a larger area, thus reducing the cooling rate, so that thermal stresses and gradients can be minimized, preventing the likelihood of hot or cold cracks from forming in the weld (Bonss, column 1, lines 32-47, column 2, lines 2-8; difference between figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Forrest in view of Both, Bonss, and Maier as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Forrest teaches wherein the larger laser focal spot area (“the trailing beam 36 has a beam diameter in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 mm,” para 0062) has a longitudinal extension (construed as an extension along the axis of the beam in the weld direction, fig. 7A; beam 36 is located at 104, fig. 7A) that is at least 2 times (the diameter of beam spot 36 along the beam axis is .4 to .8 mm), the average diameter or largest diameter of the smaller laser focal spot area (“the leading beam has a beam diameter in the range of 0.1 to 0.4 mm,” para 0062; the beam 34 is located at end 102, fig. 7; two times .1-.4 mm is at least .2-.8 mm; Forrest teaches a diameter for beam 36 that is within this range).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Forrest in view of Both, Bonss, and Maier as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Both teaches wherein the filler material is supplied in the form of a wire (“wire,” para 0006) or powder (not explicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 8, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material does not contain any aluminum except for unavoidable impurities or unavoidable trace amounts.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Both teaches wherein the filler material does not contain any aluminum except for unavoidable impurities or unavoidable trace amounts (“an aluminum-free or substantially aluminum-free filler wire is understood to mean a filler wire which contains no aluminum except for unavoidable impurities or unavoidable trace amounts,” para 0027; “Preferably, the filler wire contains at least manganese and/or nickel as elements promoting or preventing the formation of austenite.” para 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Both, by supplying an aluminum-free wire that includes at least one element for promoting austenite, as taught by Both, to the molten pool 82, as taught by Forrest, which improves both the homogenization of the aluminum flowing into the melt from the metallic coating while also causing the hardenability of the weld to also improve (Both, paras 0031 and 0037).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Forrest in view of Both, Bonss, and Maier as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Both teaches wherein the filler material contains at least one alloy element comprising nickel (“nickel,” para 0037), chromium (“0.5 to 2.0 wt.% Cr + Mo,” para 0037), or carbon (“0.05 to 0.15 wt.% C,” para 0037).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Forrest in view of Both, Bonss, and Maier as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Both teaches wherein the press hardened steel has the following composition (“press-hardenable steel with the following composition,” para 0046): 0.10-0.50% by weight C, max. 0.40% by weight Si, 0.50-2.0% by weight Mn, max. 0.025% by weight P, max. 0.010% by weight S, max. 0.60% by weight Cr, max. 0.50% by weight Mo, max. 0.050% by weight Ti, 0.0008-0.0070% by weight B, and min. 0.010% by weight Al, the remainder consisting of Fe and unavoidable impurities (para 0047).
Regarding claim 13, Forrest teaches wherein the one or more steel sheets comprise a plurality of steel sheets (substrates 78 and 80, fig. 6; para 0051). Forrest does not explicitly disclose wherein the steel sheets are welded with a welding speed of at least 4 m/min.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Both teaches wherein the steel sheets (sheets 1 and 2, fig. 1) are joined with a welding speed of at least 4 m/min (“preferably above 8 m/min,” para 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Both, by using a welding speed of at least 8 m/min, as taught by Both, in the laser welding method, as taught by Forrest, in order to use a high welding speed that increases the rate of welding production (Both, paras 0038-0041).
Regarding claim 14, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material is supplied in the form of a wire, and wherein the wire is fed at a supply speed in the range of 40% to 90% of welding speed.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Both teaches wherein the filler material is supplied in the form of a wire (“wire,” para 0006), and wherein the wire is fed at a supply speed in the range of 40% to 90% of welding speed (“The speed at which the filler wire is fed is preferably in the range of 70 to 100% of the laser welding speed,” paras 0043-0044; construed as overlapping with the claimed range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest to include, wherein the filler material is supplied in the form of a wire, and wherein the wire is fed at a supply speed in the range of 40% to 90% of welding speed, in view of the teachings of Both, by supplying a wire at a rate of 70% to 100% of the welding speed and by heating the wire to a temperature of at least 60°C using a heating device, as taught by Both, in order to enable both a significantly higher welding speed, such that the wire feeding speed is within a ratio of 70 to 100% of the rate of the welding speed, for the advantage of increasing the overall rate of welding production and causing the welding process to be more stable as a result of heating the filler wire before feeding it into the weld melt (Both, paras 0038-0044) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (referring to MPEP 2144.05.I and pages 15 and 22 of the Specification, which do not appear to place any criticality on the claimed “range of 40% to 90% of a welding speed”).
Regarding claim 15, Forrest teaches wherein the molten bath is not exposed to a protective gas flow during laser welding at least on a side facing the at least one laser beam (Forrest does not teach a protective gas flow).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Forrest in view of Both, Bonss, and Maier as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Both teaches wherein the filler material (wire 8, fig. 1) is supplied in a dragging manner (understood to mean in view of the Specification to mean “that the filler material, when considered in the welding direction, is fed in advance to the molten bath or to the smaller laser focal spot area from the front;” in figs. 4-5; Both teaches that the wire 8 is fed in front of the beam 4, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material is heated to a temperature of at least 60° C. before being fed into the molten bath.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Both teaches wherein the filler material is heated to a temperature of at least 60° C. before being fed into the molten bath (“wherein the filler material is heated to a temperature of at least 60° C., by a heating device before being fed into the molten bath,” para 0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Both, by including a heating device, as taught by Both, in the invention, as taught by Forrest, where the heating device was used to heat the wire to a temperature of at least 60°C, in order to enable a significantly higher welding speed, for the advantage of increasing the overall rate of welding production and causing the welding process to be more stable as a result of heating the filler wire before feeding it into the weld melt (Both, paras 0038-0044).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US-20080029498-A1) in view of Both et al. (WO-2017050711-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Bonss et al. (US-6444947-B1), and Maier et al. (DE-10214949-C1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Vila et al. (US-20180236600-A1).
Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material has the following composition: 0.05-0.4% by weight C, 0-2.0% by weight Si, 0-3.0% by weight Mn, 4-25% by weight Cr, 0-0.5% by weight Mo, and 5-12% by weight Ni, the remainder consisting of Fe and unavoidable impurities.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Vila teaches wherein the filler material (filler wire 25, fig. 1b; “the filler may contain a austenite stabilizing elements,” para 0045) has the following composition:
0.05-0.4% by weight C (“0%-0.3% of carbon,” para 0045),
0-2.0% by weight Si (“0%-1.3% of of silicon,” para 0045),
0-3.0% by weight Mn (“0.5%-7% of manganese,” para 0045),
4-25% by weight Cr (“5%-22% of chromium,” para 0045),
0-0.5% by weight Mo (“0%-0.4% of molybdenum,” para 0045), and
5-12% by weight Ni (“6%-20% of nickel,” para 0045),
the remainder consisting of Fe and unavoidable impurities (“the rest iron and unavoidable impurities,” para 0045; construed as 0% Niobium and 0% Silicon).
Vila, fig. 1b
PNG
media_image7.png
741
884
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest/Both, in view of the teachings of Vila, by using the filler wire, as taught by Vila, instead of the filler wire, as taught by Both, in order to use a filler wire comprised of gammagenic elements that counteract the ferrite stabilizing effect of aluminum, because if the ferrite is not counteracted, then the ferrite can lead to worse mechanical properties or a weakening in the weld after a hot deformation processes such as hot stamping (Vila, para 0040) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (referring to MPEP 2144.05.I and pages 12 and 19 of the Specification, which do not appear to place any criticality on the claimed composition of the filler material).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US-20080029498-A1) in view of Both et al. (WO-2017050711-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), Bonss et al. (US-6444947-B1), and Maier et al. (DE-10214949-C1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gao et al. (CN-106670649-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 12, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more steel sheets comprise a plurality of steel sheets, wherein the steel sheets are joined in a butt joint, and wherein a gap in the butt joint has with an average gap width of 0.01 to 0.15 mm.
However, in a different embodiment, Forrest teaches wherein the one or more steel sheets comprise a plurality of steel sheets (substrates 78 and 80, fig. 9A; para 0051), wherein the steel sheets are joined in a butt joint (“butt welding,” para 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of the fig. 9A embodiment of Forrest, by placing the substrates in a butt joint, as taught in fig. 9A, instead of a lap weld, as taught in fig. 6, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one weld type (butt welding) known in the art for another weld type (lap welding) with predictable results (the change in the weld type will not change the operation of the laser beams but will continue to allow the substrates to melt and be welded together).
Forrest does not explicitly disclose wherein a gap in the butt joint has with an average gap width of 0.01 to 0.15 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Gao teaches wherein a gap in the butt joint has with an average gap width of 0.01 to 0.15 mm (“0.1 mm welding gap,” page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest, in view of the teachings of Gao, by using a gap of 0.1 mm, as taught by Gao, between the substrates 78 and 80, as taught by Forrest, in order to provide sufficient space between the worksheets to form a double-sided weld such that the gap is filled by the wire but not too large of gap, because if there is a larger gap, then more filler wire will need to be melted to fill the larger gap thereby reducing the welding speed, but a gap of .1 mm is optimal gap size for the welded structure (Gao, pages 1 and 3; Forrest teaches a gap between the substrates, fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 18, Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler material supplied in the form of a wire is supplied to the molten bath in such that a central axis of the wire with a surface of the at least one steel sheet to be welded or of the steel sheets to be welded together encloses an acute angle of less than 50°.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Gao teaches wherein the filler material supplied in the form of a wire is supplied to the molten bath in such that a central axis of the wire with a surface of the at least one steel sheet to be welded (wire fed by the wire feeder is angled to the surface of the workpiece, fig. 1) or of the steel sheets to be welded together (fig. 2) encloses an acute angle of less than 50° (“the wire feeding angle of the wire feeder is 45-60 °,” page 2; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Forrest to include, wherein the filler material supplied in the form of a wire is supplied to the molten bath in such that a central axis of the wire with a surface of the at least one steel sheet to be welded or of the steel sheets to be welded together encloses an acute angle of less than 50°, in view of the teachings of Gao, by supplying a wire at a feeding angle of 45-60°, as taught by Gao, to the molten pool 82, as taught by Forrest, in order to use a wire feed angle that facilitates a maximum welding speed of 15 m / min for an aluminum alloy thickness of 1 mm, thereby greatly improving the production efficiency, while still having a stable welding process without defects, for the advantage of preventing the joint from softening so as to enhance the mechanical property of the weld (Gao, bottom of page 2 and top of page 3) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (referring to MPEP 2144.05.I and pages 13 and 22 of the Specification, which do not appear to place any criticality on the claimed angle range).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 May 2026 have been fully considered.
Specification
Page 7 of the arguments states that the Applicant can overcome the Specification objection by submitting a certified copy of the priority patent application. This document was filed on 7 May 2026. However, as explained in the Specification objection above, MPEP 1893.03.b and 608.01.p state that for 371 applications, an amendment cannot be made after the filing date of the Application. For 371 applications, the filing date is the date of entry into the national stage (not the date that the Applicant files with the USPTO). The examiner submits that the guidance in the MPEP is consistent with the rules of the patent cooperation treaty (PCT). Although PCT rules 4.18 and 20.6 permit incorporation by reference, this incorporation must be made within two months of date of entry in the national stage (PCT rule 20.7). The Office is bound by treaty to enforce these rules because the United States is a PCT member.
Art-Based Rejections
Regarding the Applicant’s argument on page 9 concerning the Forrest reference (US-20080029498-A1), the examiner considered paragraph 0049 and concedes that although Forrest teaches adjusting the inter-beam distance such that “with these inter-beam distances, it should be understood and appreciated that beams 34 and 36 may overlap,” that this teaching does not necessarily mean that beam 36 fully overlaps beam 34. In other words, there could be a partial overlap based on this teaching from Forrest. As a result, another reference is being applied in the Office action to teach this full overlap of beams.
Nonetheless, it clear from paragraphs 0048-0049 that Forrest considers the “inter-beam distance” to be a variable that can be adjusted. Although the Applicant states that Forest “teaches away from a complete overlap,” the examiner disagrees. Instead of discrediting the overlap of the beams, Forrest considers the inter-beam distance to be a results-effective variable that should be adjusted based on the desired power density. Specifically, Forrest teaches that “by overlapping the beams 34 and 36, an increase in power density may be achieved which may result in the laser beams 34 and 36 more fully engaging the substrates 78 and 80” (paragraph 0049).
Pages 9-10 of the argument state that even though Forrest teaches an intensity for beam 36 that is between 199-1,990 kW/cm2, and this range overlaps with the claimed range of less than 1,000kW/cm2, that modifying beam 36 to have a range of less than 1,000kW/cm2 is a non-obvious modification to those of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, the Applicant states that the examiner is applying impermissible hindsight.
However, when claimed ranges overlap with ranges that are disclosed in the prior art, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Referencing this section of the MPEP, the examiner considered the Applicant’s Specification to see if there was any criticality placed on the range of less than 1,000kW/cm2. The Specification discloses the following:
“The energy distribution is controlled in such a way that the smaller laser focal spot area (main focal spot) generates a deep welding process, while the energy of the outer or larger laser focal spot area does not exceed the energy threshold for deep welding. The threshold range is, for example, at a power density of approx. 1,000 kW/cm2.”
The disclosure of an “example” of a threshold range does not indicate criticality. In other words, there does not appear evidence in the Specification that keeping the power density below 1,000kW/cm2 would result in a difference in kind and an unexpected result compared to the power density of beam 36 that is between 199-1,990 kW/cm2, as taught by Forrest (referencing the discussion in MPEP 2144.05.III.A). Instead, these two differences in power density (below 1,000kW/cm2, as claimed, and between 199-1,990 kW/cm2, as disclosed by Forrest) appear to be differences in degree.
Page 10 of the arguments states that Forrest teaches that the diameter for beam 36 should be greater than 0.4 mm. The examiner agrees that Forrest teaches that the diameters should be “in the range of 0.4 to 0.8 mm” (paragraph 0062). As stated in the Office action above, this range of diameters produces a range for an area that is between 0.11256-0.5024 mm2. In the Office action above, the examiner stated that if this range is modified to 0.2512--0.5024 mm2, then the power density taught by Forrest would be kept below 1,000kW/cm2. An area of 0.2512 mm2 is equivalent to a diameter of 0.57 mm. Thus, if the range of diameter for beam 36, a taught by Forrest, is kept between 0.57-0.8 mm instead of 0.4-0.8mm, then Forrest would teach the claimed range for a power density that is kept below 1,000kW/cm2.
The examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s description of Maier (DE10214949C1) on pages 11-13 of the arguments. For example, the Applicant references paragraphs 0033-0034 for why the filler material should not be arranged directly inside the smaller laser point. However, these paragraphs are referring to fig. 1 of Maier. In fig. 1, Maier does not teach using a melting jet 10.
The Applicant then references paragraph 0038, where Maier teaches feeding the wire through the melting jet 10 in order to heat the wire. The Applicant states that the “feeding of the filler material directly inside the inner laser focal spot is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Maier.
The examiner agrees that Maier teaches feeding the wire through the melting jet 10 to heat the wire (for additional support, please consider paragraph 0019). However, the examiner disagrees that using the inner laser focal spot to melt the wire is not taught by Maier. Specifically, Maier teaches that “the filler wire is melted from the solid or doughty state only in the area of the high beam intensity of the welding beam” (paragraph 0046). In short, Maier teaches using the melting jet 10 to first heat the wire and then using welding beam 3 to melt the wire so “that the energy required by the welding beam to melt the filler material is significantly reduced” (paragraph 0019). Maier teaches using an additional melting jet 10 to increase the temperature of the wire prior to melting the wire using beam 3 in order to “ensure a higher process speed” (paragraph 0019). Thus, by using the melting jet 10 to first heat the wire, the wire melts faster when the wire subsequently arrives at beam 3, resulting in a faster process speed because of the melting jet 10.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/23/2026
Prosecution Insights