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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 February 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 13 August 2025. As directed by applicant, claims 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are amended, claims 15 and 18 are cancelled, and claim 19 is added. This is a Non- Final Office Action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not teach or disclose that limitation.
Claims 10- 14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bolin (U.S. Patent 4,023,005) in view of Behr (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0189994), Gilles (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0261079) and Diehl (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/ 0289739)
Regarding claim 10, Bolin discloses a welding method comprising:
arranging a plurality of members (fig. 2, elements 16 and 16a) to be joined in a state in which each of the plurality of members to be joined is in contact with each other (contacting at 18);
arranging an auxiliary member (Bolin, 22, 22a) having a greater absorption rate of a laser light than the plurality of members to be joined (column 1 line 25-37, the auxiliary member has a lower reflectivity “to promote absorption of the laser energy”) so as to face a boundary exposed surface (Bolin, 20) of the plurality of the members to be joined where a boundary of the plurality of the members to be joined is exposed,
maintaining the plurality of members to be joined in an arrangement state in which each of the plurality of members to be joined is in contact with each other by the auxiliary member (figs. 2, 3);
melting the auxiliary member by applying a laser light to the auxiliary member (figs. 1 and 3),
shifting a boundary portion in a state where a laser light is easily absorbed by increasing a temperature of the boundary portion of the plurality of members to be joined by a melted portion of the auxiliary member (Bolin, column 2 lines 52-64; figs, 1-3); and
welding a plurality of members to be joined and the auxiliary member by an alloy portion including components of the members to be joined and the auxiliary member so as to apply a laser light to the boundary portion and melting the boundary portion (Bolin, column 2 lines 52-64; figs, 1-3, the original boundary portion welds together to create other boundary portions),
Bolin does not disclose “wherein the auxiliary member includes a facing portion having a facing surface facing the boundary exposed surface, and a pair of wall portion extending from both ends of the facing portion,
wherein the auxiliary member functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state, and
in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface.
However, Behr, in his method for welding, which teaches using a member to secure not only the pieces but also about their sides, teaches ““wherein the auxiliary member includes a facing portion having a facing surface facing the boundary exposed surface, and a pair of wall portion extending from both ends of the facing portion (Behr, fig. 5 “wall portions on the sides”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bolin with the teachings of Behr, to have the auxiliary member surround the ends and extending from both sides, so that the member overlaps the portions and so that when it becomes part of the weldment, it can be entirely over and encompassing the end, in order to make a strong weld between the pieces.
And while Bolin in view of Behr teaches all the above limitations, it still does not teach “wherein the auxiliary member functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state, and
in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface.”
However, Gilles teaches “wherein the auxiliary member functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined (Gilles, ¶0019, spring clip, restricts movement),
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state (¶0019 that a spring clip may be used in order to keep pieces together and stable for welding). The advantage of having a spring clip attached to a workpiece to be welded is to make sure that the workpieces are fixed and ready to be welded. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bolin in view of Behr with the teachings of Gilles, to clip the workpieces to keep them fixed and then to weld them to ensure that the pieces are secure and will be properly welded together when the piece that surrounds them, such as in Behr, welds them also from the sides.
And while Bolin in view of Behr and Gilles teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach explicitly wherein “in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface.” However, such a spring clip, such as in Diehl teaches, in his clip for keeping parts together, in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface” (Diehl, fig, 7), wherein the clip keeps the pieces within it secure. As well, the relationship as depicted in the equation would be obvious to that a force keeps the workpieces together, and there is enough room for the pieces to fit against the facing surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bolin in view of Behr and Gilles, with the teachings of Diehl, in order to keep secure the workpieces with a spring clip, forcing the pieces together before they are welded together (Behr teaching the auxiliary member being welded together with the workpieces) in order to secure or fix the workpieces together before they are all welded together into a type of end joint.
Regarding claim 11, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further discloses a welding method wherein a melting point of the auxiliary member is greater than a melting point of the plurality of members to be joined (Bolin, column 2 lines 35-36, at least in one example the auxiliary member made of nickel has a higher melting point that copper, see https://www.addler.com.au/makes-metals-different/metal-melting-points/ and attached).
Regarding claim 12, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl teach in view of all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teaches a welding method wherein the laser light is applied to an opposite surface of the auxiliary member facing an opposite side with respect to the facing surface (Bolin, 1-3, and Behr, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Bolin discloses a welded structure comprising:
a plurality of members (Bolin, Fig. 2, 16, 16a) to be joined arranged in a state in which each of the plurality of members to be joined is in contact with each other;
and an auxiliary member (22, 22a) arranged so as to face a boundary exposed surface of the plurality of members to be joined where a boundary of the plurality of members to be joined is exposed and having a greater absorption rate of a laser light than the plurality of members to be joined to each other (column 1 line 25-37, the auxiliary member has a lower reflectivity “to promote absorption of the laser energy”);
the auxiliary member is arranged so as to face the boundary exposed surface, thereby,
the plurality of members to be joined and the auxiliary member are joined to each other by an alloy portion comprising components of the plurality of members to be joined and the auxiliary member (Bolin, column 2 lines 52-64; figs, 1-3, the weld comprises portions of all the metals) that functions as the movement restriction portion.
Bolin does not disclose wherein the auxiliary member includes a facing portion having a facing surface facing the boundary exposed surface, and a pair of wall portion extending from both ends of the facing portion;
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state, and
in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface
nor wherein the auxiliary member “functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined”.
However, Behr teaches ““wherein the auxiliary member includes a facing portion having a facing surface facing the boundary exposed surface, and a pair of wall portion extending from both ends of the facing portion (Behr, fig. 5 “wall portions on the sides”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bolin with the teachings of Behr, to have the auxiliary member surround the ends and extending from both sides, so that the member overlaps the portions and so that when it becomes part of the weldment, it can be entirely over and encompassing the end, in order to make a strong weld between the pieces.
And while Bolin in view of Behr teaches all the above limitations, it still does not teach “wherein the auxiliary member functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state, and
in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface.”
However, Gilles teaches “wherein the auxiliary member functions as a movement restriction portion that restricts a relative movement of the plurality of members to be joined (Gilles, ¶0019, spring clip, restricts movement),
wherein the auxiliary member is elastically flexible to create a sandwiching force to maintain the plurality of members in the arrangement state (¶0019 that a spring clip may be used in order to keep pieces together and stable for welding). The advantage of having a spring clip attached to a workpiece to be welded is to make sure that the workpieces are fixed and ready to be welded. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bolin in view of Behr with the teachings of Gilles, to clip the workpieces to keep them fixed and then to weld them to ensure that the pieces are secure and will be properly welded together when the piece that surrounds them, such as in Behr, welds them also from the sides.
And while Bolin in view of Behr and Gilles teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach explicitly wherein “in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface.” However, such a spring clip, such as in Diehl teaches in the cross-sectional view, W1≤ T ˂W2 is satisfied when W1 is the minimum length between the pair of wall portions, T is a total thickness of the plurality of members to be joined, and W2 is the maximum length of the facing surface” (Diehl, fig, 7), wherein the clip keeps the pieces within it secure. As well, the relationship as depicted in the equation would be obvious to that a force keeps the workpieces together, and there is enough room for the pieces to fit against the facing surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Bolin in view of Behr and Gilles, with the teachings of Diehl, in order to keep secure the workpieces with a spring clip, forcing the pieces together before they are welded together (Behr teaching the auxiliary member being welded together with the workpieces) in order to secure or fix the workpieces together before they are all welded together into a type of end joint.
Regarding claim 13, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teaches a welding method wherein the pair of wall portions extending from both end portions of the facing portion and sandwiching the plurality of members to be joined from a direction where the plurality of members to be joined is aligned (Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl has the ends coming from the direction where the workpieces are aligned, as in Behr, fig. 5) .
Regarding claim 14, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and further teaches a welding method wherein the pair of wall portions are included in a peripheral wall portion extending from a peripheral end portion of the facing portion and surrounding the plurality of members to be joined (Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles, and Diehl, the wall surrounds the periphery of the pieces to be joined, such as in Behr, fig. 5)
Regarding claim 17, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, and it further teaches
wherein, a propagating direction of the laser light is parallel to a direction that the boundary of the plurality of the members to be joined extends, the propagating direction of the laser light is orthogonal to a direction that the boundary exposed surface of the plurality of the members to be joined extends, and the laser light is applied to an opposite surface of the auxiliary member that is opposite surface of a facing surface of the auxiliary member facing the members to be joined (the laser light is applied to the top boundary, (Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles and Diehl, the boundary extends also vertically, as shown in Behr, fig. 5, and the laser light is applied (vertically) on top in an orthogonal direction to the boundary layer (laying horizontal, in both Bolin and Behr, and the laser light is applied to the outer opposite surface of the auxiliary member while the inner opposite surface faces the boundary, and thus the claim is found obvious over Bolin in view of Behr).
Regarding claim 19, Bolin in view of Behr, Gilles, and Diehl teaches all the limitations of claim 10, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein a gap is formed between the plurality of the members to be jointed and the auxiliary member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, new references have been combined to teach the amendments
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761