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
That the amendment to the claim languages filed on 3/25/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 1-8 are now pending of the record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 17/802,454 (reference application) hereinafter the’ 454. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitations set forth in this instant application are recited in the co- pending claims 1-5 of the ‘454.
In an alternatively, Claim1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 17/802,454 in view of Hideharu (JP2014183623).
The ‘454 reference claims the method for manufacturing a stator coil for a stator for a rotary electric machine operatively associated with laser welding, the method comprising steps of:
abutting on each other tip end parts of one coil piece and another one coil piece to form a welding target location at the abutted tip end parts; (see claim 1, lines 1-5); and
laser welding at the welding target location by a laser beam of the laser welder to weld the abutted tip end parts, wherein the laser beam of the laser welder has a wavelength of 0.6 um or less (see claim 1, lines 6-8).
Regarding to, wherein the laser beam in the laser welding has a focal that coincides with the welding target location, and the laser beam has an output distribution at the focal point of the laser beam that has a flat center part. Appears to be based on a constant irradiance profile through the cross section of the laser beam. Therefore, the above subject matter cannot be seen as involving an inventive step over the reference application to the ‘454.
Alternatively, the Hideharu discloses substantially above such as wherein the laser beam in the laser welding has a focal that coincides with the welding target location, and the laser beam has an output distribution at the focal point of the laser beam that has a flat center part (see Fig.11, in conjunction with discussed set forth in ¶¶ [0031-0033] for focal point of the irradiation laser beam 7g to create cross section flat shaped). Therefore, an ordinary having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ‘454 in view of Hideharu for obvious benefit of good joining between end coil with the laser beam at the focal point of the laser beam that has a flat center part.
Limitations of claims 2-8 (compare claims 2-5 in view of Hideharu as discussed in base claim 1 above) apparently is/are met an obvious of how to achieve a constant irradiance profile through the cross section of the laser beam therefore above subject matter does not involve in the inventive step over the ‘454 and Hideharu laser beam operation.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted prior art (APA, see under the Background invention) in view of Nakamura (20180036836) and/or Hideharu (JP2014183623).
APA discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a stator coil for a stator for a rotary electric machine operatively associated with laser welding, the method comprising steps of:
abutting on each other tip end parts of one coil piece and another one coil piece to form a welding target location at the abutted tip end parts; (see discussed in ¶ [0002] of the APA);
the Nakamura teaches concept of laser welding at the welding target location by a laser beam of the laser welder to weld the abutted tip end parts, wherein the laser beam of the laser welder has a wavelength of 0.6 um or less (see ¶ [0058]).
Further, regarding, wherein the laser beam in the laser welding has a focal that coincides with the welding target location, and the laser beam has an output distribution at the focal point of the laser beam that has a flat center part. This considered to be met by the Nakamura, since, the laser welding with the laser beam moves in linear parallel to the abutment surface of the tip end parts would produce in “a flat center part” (see Figs. 5, 30 and discussed in ¶ [0049]). Furthermore, considering how to achieve ( an output distribution at the focal point of the laser beam that has a flat center part) can be done by generating a constant irradiance profile through the cross section of the laser beam by an ordinary skill in the art base on the intended cross profile created by the operator. Therefore, above subject matter does not involve in the inventive step over the APA in combination with the Nakamura, and/or Hideharu laser beam operation set forth in ¶ [0031-0033] and Figs. 7, 8 at focal point 7g is having a flat profile which generated by beam B, respectively. The motivation for the combination can be found in either reference since they are in the same endeavor field invention.
As applied to claim 2, regarding to the focal point of the beam diameter is 0.1mm or more, refer to Fig. 7 where 7g representing the focal point of the beam in range of above >0.1mm. Further, regarding to the beam is 0.1mm or more. it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or use the focal point in form of 0.1mm or more, since such a operation range configuration would know by an operation of the welder in order to performing a better weld (see also Fig. 6 and Fig. 9 of the Nakamura for the operation ranges). Therefore, above in not inventive method features if depart from the applied references above.
Limitations of claims 3-8 appears to meet by the combination references above since no further method inventive features existed in these claims only operation of and/or setting of the laser beam versus dimension and/or range ratio which do not therefore involve inventive method feature over the applied references above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) 1-8 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.
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 MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Prosecution Insights