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 May 22, 2025 has been entered. Claims 16, 17, and 20-31 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all objections to the claims and the 112(b) rejections to claims 16 and 23-25.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control device... wherein the control device is configured to control the ultrasonic welding device... and to control the laser welding device” of claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function.
As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Regarding claims 17-26, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 16.
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 16-26 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.
The claim limitation “a control device... wherein the control device is configured to control the ultrasonic welding device... and to control the laser welding device” of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No structure corresponding to a "control device" is disclosed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 17-26, these claims are rejected due to their dependence on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 27-29 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A).
Regarding claim 27, Shi discloses the following:
A method for welding at least two components, ("process of laser welding plate type heat exchanger... using ultrasonic vibration and laser beam in coaxial way" par. 45. Plate type heat exchanger is welded from upper and lower plates 6, Fig. 4) wherein the two components are welded together in a first area (welding groove with width 'b', Fig. 3) by ultrasonic welding ("welding when ultrasonic wave can act on the plate sheet area to be welded", par. 45. Examiner interprets the plate sheet area to be welded is the welding groove with width 'b') and during the ultrasonic welding process, the two components are welded together by laser welding ("the laser beam 2 irradiated on the heat exchanger plate 6 surface for welding" par. 45) in a second area (irradiation region which beam 2 is incident on, Fig. 4, not specifically numbered) which is smaller than the first area (Examiner interprets irradiation region is smaller than the welding groove with width 'b', as shown in Fig. 4) and is arranged within an outer periphery of the first area (Irradiation area lies within center of welding groove with width 'b', as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Shi discloses all elements of the method of claim 27 and further discloses “wherein the components to be welded are a plurality of metal films” (Examiner interprets that the heat exchanger plates 6 can be considered metal films).
Regarding claim 29, Shi discloses all elements of the method of claim 27 and further discloses “wherein the components to be welded are at least one metal film and at least one metal sheet” (Examiner interprets that the heat exchanger plates 6 can be considered either metal films or metal sheets).
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (US Publication No. 20220048129 A1) in view of Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) and Simpson et al. (US Patent No. 8,378,248 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Bohm discloses the following:
A welding device, ("a device for producing the metal foil stack comprises the ultrasonic welding device...and a laser device", par. 30, Fig. 1 and 4a) comprising:
an ultrasonic welding device, ("ultrasonic welding device 2 which has a sonotrode 4 and an anvil 6", par. 45, Fig. 1, in embodiment where cell arrester 20 is present during ultrasonic welding, par. 64)
and a laser welding device, (laser device 22, Fig. 4a)
wherein the welding device is configured to weld at least two components together by ultrasonic welding (“When the ultrasonic welding device 2 is used, i.e., in the course of the ultrasonic welding of the metal foils 12, said metal foils are pressed (compressed) by means of the first protrusions 8 to form an embossed surface 16" par. 49) in a first area (embossed surface 16, Fig. 4. Embossed surface 16 is shown pressed by protrusions 8, Fig. 1, and not numbered. Attached are annotated Figs. 1 and 4a of Bohm, with red shading showing the areas of the metal foils which the examiner understands to be the area of foil stack 14 which are joined by ultrasonic welding) with the aid of the ultrasonic welding device (Examiner considers welding by ultrasonic device, par. 49, can be considered welding with the aid of the ultrasonic device) to weld the two components together by laser welding ("in the course of the laser beam welding process, the metal foils 12 are joined together and the metal foil stack 14 is joined to the cell arrester 20 by means of the laser beam 18") in a second area (fused region B, Fig. 4a. Examiner interprets that either of the individual fused regions B may be considered a first area) which is smaller than the first area (fused region B is smaller than the welded area of metal foil stack 14, see annotated Fig. 4a) wherein the second area at least partially lies within an outer periphery of the first area and/or is arranged bordering the outer periphery of the first area with a lateral distance less than 2mm, (fused region B lies within periphery of welded area of metal foil stack 14, see annotated Fig. 4a. As this is an alternate limitation, there is no requirement to also be arranged bordering the periphery within 2mm) with the aid of the laser welding device (laser beam 18, which performs welding, is generated by laser device 22, thus laser device 22 can be considered to aid welding, par. 63) to vibrate the ultrasonic sonotrode ("the sonotrode 4 can be caused to vibrate in a vibration direction S", par. 45) within a first period of time (the ultrasonic welding device of Bohm must vibrate for some period of time, which can be configured a first period of time) and thereby weld the two components in the first area by means of ultrasound (ultrasonic vibration of the ultrasonic device of Bohm welds the components, as the ultrasonic welding device is used "in the course of the ultrasonic welding of the metal foils" par. 49) to weld the two components together locally in the second area ("Therefore, due to the action of the laser beam 18, the metal foils 12 fuse to one another and with the cell arrester 20. The fused region B, which in particular forms a weld seam, is shown hatched for the purpose of improved visibility" par. 63) within a second time period (The laser beam of Bohm must weld for some period of time, which can be considered a second period of time) by emitting the laser beam, (laser welding is "due to the action of the laser beam 18", par. 63).
Bohm does not teach that the laser welding occurs “during the ultrasonic welding”.
Shi teaches laser welding occurs “during the ultrasonic welding” (ultrasonic vibration is started prior to laser welding and continues during laser welding, par. 56. Overlapping ultrasonic vibration and laser welding are possible due to the through hole 16 in the sonotrode, Shi Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bohm so that it has a hole in the sonotrode for a laser beam, as taught by Shi, and to modify the device so that the ultrasonic vibration of Bohm, which causes ultrasonic welding, starts prior to laser welding and continues during laser welding, as taught by Shi. Providing ultrasonic vibration during laser welding is preferable because it can "remove most of gas in welding seam" by vibration stirring, improve weld strength by making "alloy elements more uniform", and "eliminate or reduce the welding residual stress, enhanced joint strength" (Shi par. 25)
Regarding the limitation “the first time period and the second time period being simultaneous or at least overlapping in time”, examiner interprets that the first time period and the second time period are overlapping in the device of Bohm in view of Shi, as the ultrasonic vibration, and thus the first time period, of Bohm is modified to start before the laser welding, and thus the second time period, and continue as the laser welding proceeds.
Bohm in view of Shi does not teach “a control device... wherein the control device is configured to control the ultrasonic welding device... and to control the laser welding device”.
Simpson teaches a control device, (controller 82, Fig. 3) wherein the control device is configured to control the ultrasonic welding device ("The controller 82 may... adjust various components in the system 80" col. 5 lines 41-42. Examiner interprets that system 80 is a hybrid system, where an ultrasound welding source is additional to the laser welding source, col. 4 lines 36-39) and to control the laser welding device ("the controller 82 may generate a second control signal 90 to the means for directing the beam 52 with respect to the workpieces 13 to change the rate, direction, duration of the welding and/or the location of the weld joint 12" col. 7 lines 47-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Bohm in view of Shi with the controller 82 taught by Simpson for the purpose of "dynamically [altering] the welding process and/or heat treatment based on empirical measurements or sensed characteristics of the weld joint" (Simpson col. 6 lines 1-4).
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 1 of Bohm)]
PNG
media_image1.png
502
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Fig. 4a of Bohm)]
PNG
media_image2.png
395
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16, and further teaches the following:
wherein the ultrasonic welding device has an ultrasonic sonotrode (sonotrode 4, Bohm Fig. 1) and an anvil, (anvil 6, Bohm Fig. 1) wherein the ultrasonic sonotrode and the anvil are arranged opposite to and spaced from one another and enclose an operational volume between them (sonotrode 4 and anvil 6, as shown in Bohm Fig. 1 including at least metal foils 12 in the volume between them) in which at least two components to be welded are to be arranged during an ultrasonic welding process, (metal foils 12 are arranged between sonotrode 4 and anvil 6, Bohm Fig. 1, and cell arrester 20, which is a tab for a battery pack, Bohm par. 25, can be arranged between the sonotrode and anvil as it is tack welded to the metal foils during the ultrasonic welding process, Bohm par. 64) wherein the laser welding device has a laser (laser device 22 must include a laser to generate laser beam 18, Fig. Bohm 4a) for emitting a laser beam, (laser beam 18, Bohm Fig. 4a) wherein the ultrasonic sonotrode and/or the anvil have a through opening (center through hole 16, Shi Fig. 4, present as Bohm in view of Shi as discussed in claim 16) within a first area, (Examiner interprets that each hole of Bohm as modified by Shi lies within a first area, as the vibration head 15 of Shi has an area for welding bounded by parts 17 and 19, Shi Fig. 4, 5, and 6. Hole 16 lies within this area) wherein the ultrasonic sonotrode and the anvil are configured to contact the two components in the first area, during the ultrasonic welding process, from opposite sides at contact surfaces (“When the ultrasonic welding device 2 is used, i.e., in the course of the ultrasonic welding of the metal foils 12, said metal foils are pressed (compressed) by means of the first protrusions 8 to form an embossed surface 16" par. 49. Protrusions 8 of sonotrode 4 contact on a side opposite from anvil 6, Fig. 1) and to weld the two components together by ultrasonic welding, (use of ultrasonic device is for ultrasonic welding of the metal foils, par. 49, and tack welding the cell arrester 20 to the metal foils, par. 64) and wherein the laser welding device is configured to direct the laser beam through the through opening (Examiner interprets that each beam of Bohm as modified by Shi has its laser beam passing through the opening, as laser beam 2 of Shi passes through hole 16, Shi Fig. 4) onto a second area on the two components (laser beam 18 passes onto fused region B, Bohm Fig. 4a. Examiner interprets that either of the individual fused regions B may be considered a first area) in order to weld the two components together additionally by laser welding ("Therefore, due to the action of the laser beam 18, the metal foils 12 fuse to one another and with the cell arrester 20. The fused region B, which in particular forms a weld seam, is shown hatched for the purpose of improved visibility" Bohm par. 63).
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (US Publication No. 20220048129 A1) in view of Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) and Simpson et al. (US Patent No. 8,378,248 B2) further in view of Savu et al. (Romanian Patent No. 128816 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 17.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson does not teach “wherein the laser welding device is configured to direct the laser beam onto the second area obliquely inclined to the contact surface”.
Savu teaches a combined ultrasonic and laser welding device “wherein the laser welding device is configured to direct the laser beam onto the second area obliquely inclined to the contact surface” (sonotrode 1 has through opening 7, Fig. 1, with laser directed along the axis of through opening 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson so that the through opening and laser axis are inclined to the contact surface as taught by Savu for the purpose of "minimize the danger of air bubbles entering the molten metal" (Savu, par. 2). Reducing air bubbles is advantageous because air bubbles can reduce bending strength, fatigue strength, and impact toughness of a welded joint.
Regarding claim 21, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 17.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson does not teach “wherein the through opening is oriented obliquely inclined to the contact surface”.
Savu teaches a combined ultrasonic and laser welding device “wherein the through opening is oriented obliquely inclined to the contact surface” (sonotrode 1 has through opening 7, Fig. 1, with laser directed along the axis of through opening 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson so that the through opening and laser axis are inclined to the contact surface as taught by Savu for the purpose of "minimize the danger of air bubbles entering the molten metal" (Savu, par. 2). Reducing air bubbles is advantageous because air bubbles can reduce bending strength, fatigue strength, and impact toughness of a welded joint.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (US Publication No. 20220048129 A1) in view of Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) and Simpson et al. (US Patent No. 8,378,248 B2) further in view of Pelaprat et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0341144 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson is silent whether “the laser welding device is configured to emit the laser beam for laser welding with laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm”
Pelaprat teaches a laser beam for laser welding “with laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm” ("a blue laser, e.g., about 405 to about 495 nm wavelength, to weld materials" par. 28)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson to emit a blue laser as taught by Pelaprat for the purpose of "greater control, higher tolerances and thus greater reproducibility of welds" (Pelaprat par. 28).
Regarding claim 24, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 17.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson is silent whether “the laser welding device is configured to emit the laser beam for laser welding with laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm”
Pelaprat teaches a laser beam for laser welding “with laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm” ("a blue laser, e.g., about 405 to about 495 nm wavelength, to weld materials" par. 28)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding device of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson to emit a blue laser as taught by Pelaprat for the purpose of "greater control, higher tolerances and thus greater reproducibility of welds" (Pelaprat par. 28).
Claim(s) 22, 25, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (US Publication No. 20220048129 A1) in view of Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) and Simpson et al. (US Patent No. 8,378,248 B2) further in view of On (Japan Publication No. 2016-030280 A).
Regarding claim 22, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 17.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson teaches welding the foils by laser in a plurality of areas (two fused regions B, Fig. 4a), but does not teach:
wherein the ultrasonic sonotrode and/or the anvil have a plurality of through openings within the first area, and wherein the laser welding device is configured to direct laser beams through each of the through openings onto a plurality of second areas on the two components in order to weld the two components together additionally by laser welding.
On teaches a welding device (welding apparatus 100) with the following features:
“wherein the ultrasonic sonotrode and/or the anvil have a plurality of through openings (openings 11, On Fig. 5) within the first area, (plurality of openings 11 are within area of foils A fixed between jig members 10a and 10b , On Fig. 5) and wherein the laser welding device is configured to direct laser beams through each of the through openings ("laser light from the semiconductor laser and the laser light from the YAG laser are simultaneously applied to the welds through the through holes 11", On par. 46) onto a plurality of second areas ("welds through the through holes 11", On par. 46. Examiner interprets that the areas of the welds can be considered second areas) on the two components (objects welded are the plurality of metal foils A, On par. 46) in order to weld the two components together... by laser welding ("welding is performed by irradiating the object A with hybrid laser light of semiconductor laser light and YAG laser light through the through holes 11" par. 38)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson so that the multiple fused regions are welded by multiple lasers, each laser passing through a through opening, as taught by On, for the purpose of producing welded assemblies with multiple welded areas without delays from a laser welding each area one at a time. This is preferable because it allows the device to produce welds in multiple areas at higher speeds.
Regarding claim 25, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson is silent whether “the laser welding device is configured, for laser welding, to emit laser light with a power of less than 3 kW”.
On teaches a laser welding device “wherein the laser welding device is configured, for laser welding, to emit laser light with a power of less than 3 kW” (plurality of foils are welded to a tab with laser of 600 W, par. 43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute each laser of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson with the 600W lasers of On because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of welding a plurality of foils to a tab.
Regarding claim 26, Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson as applied to claim 16 teaches all elements of claim 16.
Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson is silent whether “the laser welding device is configured, for laser welding, to emit laser light with a power of less than 3 kW”.
On teaches a laser welding device “wherein the laser welding device is configured, for laser welding, to emit laser light with a power of less than 3 kW” (plurality of foils are welded to a tab with laser of 600 W, par. 43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute each of Bohm in view of Shi and Simpson with the 600W lasers of On because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of welding a plurality of foils to a tab.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) in view of Miller (US Publication No. 2009/0211977 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Shi discloses all elements of the method of claim 29.
Shi does not disclose that “at least one metal film and/or at least one metal sheet consist predominantly of copper”.
Shi instead discloses that the metal heat exchanger plates can be nickel (par. 50), or titanium (par. 60), among others.
Miller teaches a heat exchanger made with metal heat transfer layers, where "Suitable metals include, without limitation, iron, copper, aluminum, nickel, titanium, gold, silver, or tin. Copper may be a particularly desirable material" (par. 31). Miller also teaches that the heat transfer layers may be bonded by laser or ultrasonic welding (par. 87).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the heat exchanger sheets of Shi to be copper, as taught by Miller.
This modification would have been obvious because copper is known as a suitable equivalent for both nickel and titanium for the purpose of making heat exchangers from metal layers. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (China Publication No. 105414763 A) in view of Pelaprat et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0341144 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Shi discloses all elements of the method of claim 29.
Shi is silent whether “wherein for laser welding, laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm, is used”
Pelaprat teaches laser welding ““with laser light having a wavelength of less than 600 nm, preferably less than 500 nm” ("a blue laser, e.g., about 405 to about 495 nm wavelength, to weld materials" par. 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Shi to use a blue laser as taught by Pelaprat for the purpose of "greater control, higher tolerances and thus greater reproducibility of welds" (Pelaprat par. 28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-21 and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered. Applicant presented no arguments concerning the rejection of original claims 17 and 22 under On in view of Bohm. However, these rejections have not been maintained, and new grounds of rejection have been presented necessitated by the amendments to claim 17.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments concerning Shi:
Applicant’s arguments concerning Shi are considered separately for independent claim 16 and independent claim 27 (and their respective dependent claims). This is necessary because claim 16 has been amended while claim 27 has not, and because claims 16 and 27 have different scopes.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that Shi does not teach an ultrasonic welding device, in regards to claim 16 and its dependent claims:
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Shi is not used to teach an ultrasonic welding device in the rejections of amended claim 16 and its dependents.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that Shi does not teach an ultrasonic welding device, in regards to claim 27 and its dependent claims:
These arguments are not persuasive. The ultrasonic device of Shi provides ultrasonic vibration to the welded materials while they are being welded. The ultrasonic device is a necessary, not optional, component of the welding method disclosed by Shi, and the operation of the ultrasonic device immediately preceding and during laser welding is disclosed as being crucial to the beneficial effects disclosed by Shi. Therefore, examiner maintains their holding that the ultrasonic device which assists welding of Shi can be considered an ultrasonic welding device, and the welding process assisted by ultrasonic vibration can be considered ultrasonic welding, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of those terms, as the ultrasonic device and its operation during the laser welding are required elements to the process disclosed by Shi.
Applicant argues that “the ultrasonic welding device should generate the ultrasound with such high energy that it can be used to produce a weld independently of the laser welding device”. It is noted that this requirement is not recited in the rejected claim 27 and its dependents. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that the applicant added new limitations to amended claim 16 in order to distinguish the claimed welding process from ultrasonic assisted welding (specifically, “thereby weld the two components in the first area by means of ultrasound”) yet failed to do so for claim 27.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that “there was no motivation whatsoever to modify the ultrasonic device described in SHI in such a way that it would have been capable of welding itself” in regards to independent claim 16 and its dependents:
These arguments are not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Shi is not used to teach an ultrasonic welding device which is modified to be capable of welding itself.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that “there was no motivation whatsoever to modify the ultrasonic device described in SHI in such a way that it would have been capable of welding itself” in regards to independent claim 27 and its dependents:
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that an ultrasonic welding device capable of independent welding is not recited in the rejected claim 27 and its dependents. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner repeats their holding discussed earlier in the arguments that a device does not need to be capable of independent ultrasonic welding to be considered an ultrasonic welding device under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that “significant advantages can be achieved by combining a laser welding device and an ultrasonic welding device and in particular by designing them in such a way that ultrasonic welding and laser welding can be carried out simultaneously”, in regards to claim 16 and their dependent claims:
These arguments are not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that “significant advantages can be achieved by combining a laser welding device and an ultrasonic welding device and in particular by designing them in such a way that ultrasonic welding and laser welding can be carried out simultaneously”, in regards to claim 27 and their dependent claims:
These arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that an ultrasonic welding device which is independent of laser welding, and is carried out simultaneously with laser welding, is not recited in the rejected claim 27 and its dependents. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that Simpson does not render control unit obvious for a hybrid laser and ultrasonic welding device:
These arguments are not persuasive.
As evidence, applicant argues that Simpson “is silent about specific characteristics of such system such as a specific spatial arrangement of first and second welding areas as well as first and second overlapping welding time periods”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Simpson is not used to teach the claimed spatial arrangement or welding time periods in the rejections of any original or amended claims.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that a control unit is not rendered obvious by Shi in combination with the prior art, in regards to claim 27 and its dependents:
These arguments are not persuasive. A control unit is not claimed by claim 27 or its dependents. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation to modify Shi to arrive at the claimed invention, in regards to claim 16 and its dependents:
These arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Shi as a primary reference which is modified to arrive at the claimed invention.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation to modify Shi to arrive at the claimed invention, in regards to claim 27 and its dependents:
These arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. In this case, no arguments specifically point out the patentable novelty in regards to Miller as applied to Shi for the rejection of claim 30, or Pelaprat as applied to Shi for the rejection of claim 31. No argument is made concerning any alleged defects specific to the rejections of Shi in view of Miller or Shi in view of Pelaprat.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the dependent claims are patentable due to their dependence on either claim 16 or claim 27:
These arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that these claims are patentable due to their dependence on patentable independent claims 16 or 27. Amended claim 16 and restated original claim 27 are not patentable as written, as discussed in the rejection to those claims.
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 BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/BENNETT GALLUP BOWERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761