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 .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 7/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “a rotary electric machine” as recited in line 4 appears to be --the rotary electric machine--.
Re. claim 3: The phrase “brought together in the oscillation period” as recited in line 4 appears to be --brought together in the oscillation period of the pulse oscillation--.
Re. claim 5: The phrase “brought together in the oscillation period” as recited in lines 3-4 appears to be --brought together in the oscillation period of the pulse oscillation--.
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 1-5 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.
Re. claim 1: The phrase “The tip end part” as recited in lines 5-6 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “the one welding target location” as recited in line 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 4: The phrase “the pulse oscillation” as recited in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 5: The phrase “the pulse oscillation” as recited in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2018/0036836) in view of Bocksrocker et al (US 12,115,595), and further in view of Zumoto et al. (US PAT. 5,684,642).
Nakamura teaches a process of making a stator for a rotary electric machine comprising: a process of abutting, on each other, tip end parts (24a, 25b, Fig. 4, paragraph [0048]) of one coil piece and an other one coil piece for forming a stator coil of a rotary electric machine; and a welding process of irradiating a welding target location regarding the tip end part having been abutted with a laser beam having a wavelength of 0.6 m or less (paragraph [0058]), wherein in the welding process, the laser beam is generated for every pulse oscillation in a laser oscillator in a mode of having a laser output of 2.0 kW or more (paragraph [0078]), wherein the laser beam is moved so that an irradiation position changes linearly parallel to an abutment surface of the tip end part as shown in Fig. 5 (paragraph [0049]).
However, Nakamura fails to disclose the welding by the laser having a laser output of 3.0 kW or more. Bocksrocker et al. teach a method of welding wire ends of hairpin (Figs. 1 and 2) using a laser beam (4) with a wavelength of 1030 nm or 515 nm (0.5 µm) (Col. 3, lines 12-16) and laser power ratio (Col. 2, lines 11-12) in the core region (8, Fig. 2a) of 0.9 kW (Col. 3, line 13) to a ring region (9) of 5 kW (Col. 4, line 25) is between 10:90 and 70:30, in order to obtain significantly fewer pores and less spatter rise during the laser beam welding (Col. 2, lines 55-59). Therefore, It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nakamura by applying the welding process of wire ends of hairpin using a laser beam, as taught by Bocksrocker et al., with a wavelength of 515 nm (0.5 µm) with laser power beam between 0.9 kW and 5 kW, in order to obtain significantly fewer pores and less spatter rise during the laser beam welding.
In addition, Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al., teach all limitations as set forth above, but silent the laser beam, which is generated for every pulse oscillation in a laser oscillator. Zumoto et al. teach a laser welding process such that “In the twenty-fifth aspect of the present invention there is provided a light radiating method wherein a laser oscillator of a pulse oscillation type is used as the laser oscillator in any of the foregoing optical transmission system, and the light intensity distribution is changed in one pulse of the laser beam at the time of radiating the laser beam to an object to be irradiated, the said change in one pulse being repeated for each pulse. According to the light radiating method in the twenty-fifth aspect of the present invention, as mentioned above, since the light intensity distribution in one pulse of the laser beam from a pulse oscillation type laser oscillator in any of the foregoing optical transmission system is changed at the time of radiation of the laser beam to an object to be irradiated and the said change in one pulse is repeated for each pulse, the energy density for the material can be made changeable, thereby making it possible to effect welding, cutting and piercing to a satisfactory extent in point of quality” as disclosed in col. 10, lines 20-38. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a welding process of Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al., by the laser beam generated for every pulse oscillation in a laser oscillator as taught by Zumoto et al. in order to produce a satisfactory extent in point of quality.
Re. claim 2: Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al. and Zumoto et al., also teaches that, in the welding process, the one welding target location is irradiated with the laser beam by two or more times of pulse oscillation (101, Fig. 6), and the one pulse oscillation constitutes the two or more times of pulse oscillation (paragraphs [0056]-[0057]).
Re. claim 3: Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al. and Zumoto et al., also teaches that the pulse oscillation is performed in a mode where energy accumulated using a period before an oscillation of the pulse oscillation is brought together in the oscillation period (paragraph [0057]).
Re. claim 4: Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al. and Zumoto et al., also teaches that the two or more times of pulse oscillation (101, Fig. 6) include a first pulse oscillation for irradiating a first range of the welding target location with the laser beam and a second pulse oscillation for irradiating a second range of the welding target location (Fig. 9, Laser Beam Application Trajectory [LBAT]) with the laser beam, the first range and the second range partially overlap (Top of LBAT), and a moving direction of an irradiation position of the laser beam during the first pulse oscillation and a moving direction of an irradiation position of the laser beam during the second pulse oscillation oppose each other (at Start/End line of each LBAT).
Re. claim 5: Nakamura, modified by Bocksrocker et al. and Zumoto et al., also teaches that the pulse oscillation is performed in a mode where energy accumulated using a period before an oscillation period of the pulse oscillation is brought together (Start/End in Fig. 5) in the oscillation period.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
