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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Specification objection. However, a new Specification objection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, Applicant’s amendments have provides grounds for an additional Claim objection.
A new 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11 July 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 20 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-19 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 17-18, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…moving the single laser focal spot comprising the smaller laser focal spot area within the larger laser focal spot area…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the smaller laser focal spot area is controlled in such a way that the smaller laser focal spot area generates a deep welding process 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 for deep welding.” It is unclear what laser energy output per surface unit is considered to be “deep welding” for the smaller laser focal spot area. Similarly, it what not clear what value is considered to be “an energy threshold for deep welding” for the larger laser focal spot area. The Specification disclose that “the threshold range is, for example, at a power density of approx. 1,000 kW/cm2.” For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “…wherein the laser energy output per surface unit introduced in the smaller laser focal spot area is controlled in such a way that the smaller laser focal spot area generates a deep welding process, wherein the laser energy output per surface unit is greater than 1,000 kW/cm2, 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.”
Claims 2-19 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 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).
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 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 a smaller laser focal spot within a 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; 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) within 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; when the diameter of beam 36 is kept larger than the diameter of beam 34, then the area of beam 36 becomes 0.2512-0.5024 mm2; 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; while feeding filler material into the molten bath.
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).
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 6, the combination of Forrest in view of Both 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 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 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 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 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 5 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) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bonss et al. (US-6444947-B1).
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).
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 using a rectangular beam spot, as taught by Bonss, for the laser beam 36, as taught by Forrest, 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).
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) 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_image6.png
741
884
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/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) 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).
Claims 16 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) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Maier et al. (DE-10214949-C1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Forrest teaches the invention as described above but does 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_image7.png
672
516
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, 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).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 November 2025 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding claim 1, the examiner agrees with the statements at the bottom of page 9 and top of page 10 of the arguments that Forrest (US20080029498A1) teaches that the larger laser beam 36 is used to control the shape of the keyhole.
However, the examiner disagrees that because beam 36 is used to shape the keyhole, then the beam “would require the energy threshold for deep welding to be exceeded for the larger laser focal spot area.” Forrest makes no mention of using beam 36 to conduct deep welding. Instead, Forrest describes using beam 34 as a “deeply penetrating leading beam” (paragraph 0053). This deep penetration is shown in fig. 6. In contrast, Forrest shows beam 36 penetrating to a depth that is less than beam 34 in fig. 6. Forrest describes using this beam 36 to counteract the deeply penetrating beam 34, by using beam 36 to smooth out the bumps that result from the reflections caused by the deep penetrations of beam 34 (paragraph 0054). Thus, the examiner disagrees that beam 36 causes deep penetrations. Instead, Forrest teaches that beam 34 causes deep penetrations and that beam 36 is used to counter the undesirable effects caused by these deep penetrations.
Forrest’s teachings are similar to what is disclosed in the Specification of the Instant Application. The Specification states that “the smaller laser focal spot area 16.1 is essentially used for deep welding, while the larger laser focal spot area 16.2 supports the welding process.” Just like beam 16.1 in the Instant Application is used for “deep welding,” Forrest teaches that beam 34 is “deeply penetrating.” Similarly, just as beam 16.2 used to support the welding process, Forrest teaches using beam 36 to shape the keyhole of the weld pool to remove pores during the welding process.
Therefore, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant that the claimed invention can overcome the Forrest reference by requiring that beam 36 not be used for deep welding. Forrest teaches that beam 34 performs the deep welding and not beam 36. The configuration of two beams that are taught by Forrest appears to be the same two-beam configuration that is disclosed in the Specification of the Instant Application.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Walter et al. (US-20180071848-A1) teach splitting a laser beam for laser welding.
Wang et al. (US-20190118307-A1) teach a method for laser welding steel workpieces.
Finuf et al. (US-10940562-B2) teach overlapping beams for welding.
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 2/2/2026