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 .
Prosecution Reopened
The advisory action mailed on July 6th 2026 and the office action mail on May 6th 2026 are being withdrawn and the prosecution is being reopened, a second Non-Final is written as follow:
Claims Status:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, 15 and 18-19 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are examined as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, the term “or” in line 4, should change to “and” to avoid confusion and possible 112b.
In claim 18, the term “or” in line 5, should change to “and” to avoid confusion and possible 112b.
In claim 19, the term “or” in line 4, should change to “and” to avoid confusion and possible 112b.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim limitation “secondary gas system” in claims 4 and 15 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system" coupled with functional language “…configured to direct…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “secondary gas system" has been described in Paragraph 0019, 0020 and 0044 as a gas source that provide gases.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze.
Regarding claim 1, Souze discloses a laser welding system (refer to fig.1) for joining a first workpiece (#40, fig.1) to a second workpiece (#42, fig.1), comprising:
a laser welder (#12, fig.1) configured to emit a laser beam (#38, fig.1) at a power to form a weld (#36, fig.1) to join the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) and the second workpiece (#42, fig.1) at a weld location (refer to the location of #36 in fig.1); and
a plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) coupled to a surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1), the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) defining an opening (#20, fig.1) through a first planar surface (refer to the planar surface of #22 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) to a second fixture planar surface (refer to planar surface of #34 facing #40 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) so that the opening (#20, fig.1) receives the laser beam (#38, fig.1), the opening (#20, fig.1) having a perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) to that surrounds and is spaced apart from the weld (#36, fig.1) and wherein the first planar surface (refer to the planar surface of #22 in fig.1) extends from the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1), and the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) has a height (refer to the height of #16 in fig.1) measured from the first planar surface (refer to the planar surface of #22 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) to the second fixture planar surface (refer to planar surface of #34 facing #40 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1), above the surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) about the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) of the opening (#20, fig.1); wherein the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) of the opening (#20, fig.1) is spaced from the weld path (refer to the path between the two #38 in fig.1) and the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) is configured such that gas is freely exchanged (refer to the open end of #20 in fig.1) between the opening (#20, fig.1) and the atmosphere surrounding the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Souze does not explicitly disclose a height above the surface of at least the first workpiece about the perimeter of the opening that is defined based on the power of the laser beam.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height the opening that is defined based on the power of the laser beam, for adjusting height is well known within one of ordinary skill in the art as the matter of design choice or desired application, refer to In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Since the applicant does not state what other problem solve or benefit of such limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Souze’s teaching.
Regarding claim 5, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) defines a plurality of the opening (refer to multiple opening #20 for each #34 in fig.2), which are spaced apart on the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) from a first fixture side to a second fixture side (refer to the two side of #50 in fig.2), and wherein the laser welding system (refer to fig.1 and 2) does not include a sealed shielding enclosure (refer to #20 is an open end of the shielding enclosure, such that the shielding enclosure is not sealed) with gas circulation or vacuum evacuation.
PNG
media_image2.png
565
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses wherein the weld location (refer to the location of #36 in fig.1) is a first surface (referring to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1), and the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) is joined to the second workpiece with (#42, fig.1) an overlap joint (referring the joint at #24 in fig.1).
Claims 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein, and further in view of LEE et al (US2023/0356327A1 previously cited) herein set forth as LEE.
Regarding claim 2, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters, and the power of the laser beam is greater than 3 kilowatts.
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses the power of the laser beam is greater than 2 kilowatts (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
Klein does not disclose the specific range of laser power is greater than 3 kilowatts; wherein the height is 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters,
However, since Klein discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of laser power is greater than 3 kilowatts, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 3mm to 5mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 3mm to 5mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough diameter size to conduct weld, can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Regarding claim 3, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters, and the power of the laser beam is lesser than 3 kilowatts.
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses the power of the laser beam is greater than 2 kilowatts (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
Klein does not disclose the specific range of laser power is lesser than 3 kilowatts; wherein the height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters,
However, since Klein discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of laser power is lesser than 3 kilowatts, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 5mm to 10mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 5mm to 10mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough diameter size to conduct weld, can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Regarding claim 14, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is greater than 3 kilowatt, and the height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is less than 3 kilowatts.
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses the power of the laser beam is greater than 2 kilowatts (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of laser power is greater than 2 kilowatts, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved and would increase the marketability of the invention.
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 5mm to 10mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 5mm to 10mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough diameter size to conduct weld, can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of North et al (US2022/0181752A1 newly cited) herein set forth as North.
Regarding claim 4, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses comprising a secondary gas system (#52, fig.1) comprising a configured to direct a flow of a gas (#10 fig.1) over the surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) and the height (refer to “height” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) is configured to inhibit the flow of the gas from disturbing weld plasma (#48, fig.1) at the weld location (refer to the location of #36 in fig.1).
Souze does not discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture does not include a gas supply port and does not include a gas evacuation port, and wherein the laser welding system does not include a tubular enclosure, a gas supply port, a gas evacuation port, an isolator, an active gas containment and evacuation.
In the similar field of laser welding system, North discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#110, fig.1) does not include a gas supply port and does not include a gas evacuation port, and wherein the laser welding system does not include a tubular enclosure, a gas supply port, a gas evacuation port, an isolator, an active gas containment and evacuation.
PNG
media_image3.png
418
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replace Souze’s plasma protection fixture with North’s plasma protection fixture, in order to provide a wider opening and thinner fixture, that would reduce the material required to manufacture the fixture, and provide a wide view angle to observe the welding process, such that would reduce to complexity of identifying defected weld.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein, and further in view of Ausllio (US4847467 previously cited) herein set forth as Ausllio.
Regarding claim 6, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 8,
Souze further discloses wherein the weld location (refer to the location of #36, fig.1) is a first surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1), the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) is joined to the second workpiece (#42, fig.1) with an overlap joint (referring to the joint at #24 in fig.1), the opening (#20, fig.1) is rectangular (refer to Paragraph 0008 cited: “…According to other aspects of the laser welding tool, the tubular enclosure may be a rigid rectangular housing (e.g. made of metal or glass) having an open top end and an open bottom end…”), the weld is a linear stitch weld (#36, refer to fig.3 and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Referring to FIG. 3, a plan view of a bus bar 40 (or other type of part) is shown that is taken in a cross section through the tubular enclosure 18. A pair of linear stitch welds 36′ are shown to be formed on the part 40.…”) formed along a weld path (referring the #36’s path in fig.3), the linear stitch weld (#36, refer to fig.3) is centered in the opening (#20, fig.1) (refer to fig.3).
Souze does not explicitly disclose the secondary gas system is configured to direct the flow of the gas in a direction parallel to the weld path such that the flow of the gas follows the weld path, and wherein the plasma protection fixture has an L-shape handle.
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses the secondary gas system (#58, fig.2) is configured to direct the flow of the gas (#42, fig.2) in a direction parallel to the weld path (#22, fig.2) such that the flow of the gas (#42, fig.2) follows the weld path (#22, fig.2).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
303
318
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s secondary gas with configured to direct the flow of the gas in a direction parallel to the weld path such that the flow of the gas follows the weld path, as taught by Klein, in order to provide a better shielding to the welding forming and also more effective removal of smoke and weld splatter, such that would generate a better weld.
Klein does not disclose the plasma protection fixture has an L-shape handle.
In the field of laser welding, Ausllio discloses the plasma protection fixture (#10, fig.1) has an L-shape handle (#28, fig.1 -2).
PNG
media_image6.png
405
563
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with an L-shape handle, as taught by Ausllio, in order to provide safer and better means to handle the fixture, such that would reduce accident or mishandling of the fixture that cause damage to the fixture or injury to the operator.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of KATO et al (US2020/0023516A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KATO.
Regarding claim 7, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses wherein the weld location (refer to the location of #36, fig.1) is a first surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1), the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) is joined to the second workpiece (#42, fig.1) with an overlap joint (referring to the joint at #24 in fig.1), the opening (#20, fig.1) is rectangular (refer to Paragraph 0008 cited: “…According to other aspects of the laser welding tool, the tubular enclosure may be a rigid rectangular housing (e.g. made of metal or glass) having an open top end and an open bottom end…”), and the weld (#36, fig.1) is positioned within the opening (#20, fig.1).
Souze does not explicitly disclose the weld is a spot weld.
In the similar field of laser welding, WATANABE discloses the use of spot welding (refer to Paragraph 0008 cited: “…a laser for performing welding such as spot welding, arc welding, and laser welding…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Souze’s laser with WATANABE’s laser spot weld, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of pressure controlling, in order to provide other options of welding and such that would increase the marketability and utility of the invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of KEONG et al (US2014/0183166A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KEONG.
Regarding claim 8, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the plasma protection fixture defines a fixture bore, and further comprising a coupling system comprises a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore to apply a pressure to at least the first workpiece.
In the similar field of welding jig, KEONG discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#23, fig.4A) defines a fixture bore (#232, fig.4A), and further comprising a coupling system comprises a mechanical fastener (refer to Paragraph 0032 cited: “…The top positioning member 23 can be a plate used as a plate-pressing jig and designed for preventing deformation induced by thermal expansion and contraction. The top positioning member 23 has an operating opening 231 at the center part and a plurality of positioning holes 232 on both sides. The plurality of positioning holes 232, 222 can be locked to each other by screw members (not shown in the figures) so that the top positioning member 23 is fixed on the top surface of the positioning posts 22…”) configured to be received through the fixture bore (#232, fig.4A) to apply a pressure to at least the first workpiece (#12, fig.4A).
PNG
media_image7.png
493
463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with wherein the plasma protection fixture defines a fixture bore, and further comprising a coupling system comprises a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore to apply a pressure to at least the first workpiece, as taught by KEONG, in order to provide a more secure and stronger coupling system, such that the workpieces would not get loose during the welding processes.
Regarding claim 9, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not explicitly disclose mechanical fastener comprises an elongated portion.
In the similar field of welding jig, KEONG discloses mechanical fastener (refer to screw member #414 in paragraph 0046 in fig.9) comprises an elongated portion (refer to the distance between the #412 in fig.9).
PNG
media_image8.png
543
599
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with a fixture bore, and the coupling system comprises a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore to apply the pressure to at least the first workpiece, as taught by KEONG, in order to provide a more secure and stronger coupling system, such that the workpieces would not get loose during the welding processes.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Souze and KEONG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 9, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw or a spring pin.
In the similar field of weld jig, KEONG further discloses wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw (refer to screw member #414 in paragraph 0046 in fig.9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw (refer to screw member as #414 in paragraph 0046), as taught by KEONG, in order to provide a more secure and stronger fastener, such that the workpieces would not accidentally get loose during the welding processes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein.
Regarding claim 11, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze does not specifically disclose wherein the laser welder is operable in a keyhole welding mode and a conduction welding mode.
In line with the instant application’s specification paragraph 0017 cited: “… the laser welding machine 102 outputs the laser beam 120 at a first power (greater than 3 kilowatts (kw)) in the keyhole welding mode or at a second power (less than 3 kilowatts (kw)) in the conduction welding mode …”,
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses a laser energy that overlap with the definition of keyhole weld mode and conduction weld mode (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
since Klein discloses range that overlapped at least partial on the conduction weld mode and the keyhole weld mode disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power range across the overlapped range of both mode, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better control on penetration keyhole weld or not into the joint of the workpieces or by conduction weld, such that allow a different weld for different need can be achieved.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Sharp (US4577088 previously cited) herein set forth as Sharp.
Regarding claim 12, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses wherein the weld location (#36, fig.1) is the surface (referring the surface of the #40, fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) proximate a first end (refer to the end of the surface on #24 for #40 in fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1); wherein a second surface (refer to the surface of #24 on #42 in fig.1) of the second workpiece (#42, fig.1) proximate a second end (refer to the end of surface opposite to #24 of #42 in fig.1) of the second workpiece (#42, fig.1), and the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) is joined to the second workpiece (#42, fig.1).
Souze does not explicitly disclose the use of a butt joint.
In the similar field of laser welding with welding jig, Sharp discloses the use of butt welding (refer to title: “method of laser butt welding”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Souze’s weld with Sharp laser butt welding, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of pressure controlling, in order to provide different kind of welding to fit different needs, such that would increase the marketability and utility of the current invention.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein, and further in view of KEONG et al (US2014/0183166A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KEONG.
Regarding claim 15, Souze discloses a laser welding system (refer to fig.1 and 2) for joining a first workpiece (#40, fig.1 and 2) to a second workpiece (#42, fig.1 and 2), comprising:
a laser welder (#12, fig.1 and 2) configured to emit a laser beam (#38, fig.1 and 2) at a power (Examiner note: a power is inherently disclosed) to form a weld (#36, fig.1) to join the first workpiece (#40, fig.1 and 2) and the second workpiece (#42, fig.1 and 2) at a weld path (refer to the location of #36 in fig.1); and
a secondary gas system (#52, fig.1) comprising a discharge conduit (examiner note: a discharge conduit is inherently disclosed when involve “air knife”) configured to direct a laminar flow (Examiner note: air knife is a laminar flow) of a secondary gas (refer to the big arrow #10 form #52 in fig.1) over a surface of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) and over a first fixture planar surface (refer to “first surface” annotated in fig.1) in a direction parallel (refer to fig.1 #52’s big arrow that is parallel to the surface of #40, fig.1) to the weld path (refer to #36, fig.1)
a plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) #18 and #50, fig.2) including a mechanical fastener (#50, fig.2) referring the big arrow downward to the #40 surface in fig.2) to the surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1 and 2) of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1 and 2); the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) defining an opening (#20, fig.1) through a first planar surface (refer to the planar surface of #22 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) to a second fixture planar surface (refer to planar surface of #34 facing #40 in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) so that the opening (#20, fig.1) receives the laser beam (#38, fig.1), the coupling system (#18 and #50, fig.2) defined about a perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) of the opening (#20, fig.1), the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) of the opening (#20, fig.1) surrounds and is spaced apart from the weld path (#36, fig.1) that is defined within the opening (#20, fig.1), the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) has a height (refer to the height of #18 in fig.1 and 2) above the surface (refer to the surface of #40, fig.1 and 2) of at least the first workpiece (#40, fig.1 and 2) about the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) of the opening (#20, fig.1) refer to the height of #18 in fig.1 and 2) of the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) is configured to inhibit the flow of the gas (refer to the big arrow of #52, fig.1 and 2) from disturbing weld plasma (#48, fig.1 and 2) along the weld path (#36, fig.1), wherein the opening (#20, fig.1) define a safety envelope (refer to the wall #18 in fig.1) surrounding the weld (#36, fig.1) and the perimeter (refer to parameter of #18 in fig.1) is spaced from the weld path (refer to the path between the two #38 in fig.1) along the entire weld path (refer to the path between the two #38 in fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
565
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Souze does not explicitly disclose the laser welder operable in a welding mode, the welding mode including a keyhole welding mode and a conduction welding mode; such that the flow of the gas follow the weld path; defining a fixture bore and a coupling system including a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore; a height above the surface of at least the first workpiece about the perimeter of the opening that is defined based on the weld mode.
In line with the instant application’s specification paragraph 0017 cited: “… the laser welding machine 102 outputs the laser beam 120 at a first power (greater than 3 kilowatts (kw)) in the keyhole welding mode or at a second power (less than 3 kilowatts (kw)) in the conduction welding mode …”,
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses a laser energy that overlap with the definition of keyhole weld mode and conduction weld mode (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
since Klein discloses range that overlapped at least partial on the conduction weld mode and the keyhole weld mode disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the power range across the overlapped range of both mode, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better control on penetration keyhole weld or not into the joint of the workpieces or by conduction weld, such that allow a different weld for different need can be achieved.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height above the surface of at least the first workpiece about the perimeter of the opening that is defined based on the power of the laser beam, since Souze teaches the purpose of the plasma protection fixture is to contain the weld splatter that generate by the heat generated by the laser (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited: “…A plurality of weld spatter particles 46 are shown being expelled from the laser weld 36 that are formed when the laser beam 38 heats the parts 40 and 42. The particles 46 are contained within the shielding enclosure assembly 16 and may also be removed from the tubular enclosure 18 by being drawn through the gas evacuation port 30. …”), therefore the higher the laser power would generate more heat and stronger splatter, and the height of the plasma protection fixture would be adjusted accordingly.
Klein further discloses the secondary gas system (#58, fig.2) is configured to direct the flow of the gas (#42, fig.2) in a direction parallel to the weld path (#22, fig.2) such that the flow of the gas (#42, fig.2) follows the weld path (#22, fig.2).
PNG
media_image5.png
303
318
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
528
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s secondary gas with configured to direct the flow of the gas in a direction parallel to the weld path such that the flow of the gas follows the weld path, as taught by Klein, in order to provide a better shielding to the welding forming and also more effective removal of smoke and weld splatter, such that would generate a better weld.
Klein does not explicitly disclose defining a fixture bore and a coupling system including a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore.
In the similar field of welding jig, KEONG discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#412, fig.9) defines a fixture bore (referring to the hole of #414 in fig.9), and the coupling system (#414, fig.9) comprises a mechanical fastener (refer to screw member as #414 in paragraph 0046) configured to be received through the fixture bore (referring to the hole of #414 in fig.9) to apply the pressure (refer to the term “tightly: in paragraph 0046) to at least the first workpiece (#12A, fig.9).
PNG
media_image8.png
543
599
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with a fixture bore, and the coupling system comprises a mechanical fastener configured to be received through the fixture bore to apply the pressure to at least the first workpiece, as taught by KEONG, in order to provide a more secure and stronger coupling system, such that the workpieces would not get loose during the welding processes.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of Souze, Klein and KEONG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Souze further discloses wherein the weld location (refer to the location of #36, fig.1) is a first surface (refer to the surface of #40 in fig.1) of the first workpiece (#40, fig.1), the first workpiece (#40, fig.1) is joined to the second workpiece (#42, fig.1) with an overlap joint (referring to the joint at #24 in fig.1), the opening (#20, fig.1) is rectangular (refer to Paragraph 0008 cited: “…According to other aspects of the laser welding tool, the tubular enclosure may be a rigid rectangular housing (e.g. made of metal or glass) having an open top end and an open bottom end…”), the weld is a linear stitch weld (#36, refer to fig.3 and Paragraph 0032 cited: “…Referring to FIG. 3, a plan view of a bus bar 40 (or other type of part) is shown that is taken in a cross section through the tubular enclosure 18. A pair of linear stitch welds 36′ are shown to be formed on the part 40.…”) formed along a weld path (referring the #36’s path in fig.3), the linear stitch weld (#36, refer to fig.3) is centered in the opening (#20, fig.1). Wherein the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) does not include a gas supply port and does not include a gas evacuation port (refer to fig 1, #34 does not have port at all), and wherein the laser welding system (refer to fig.1 and 2) does not include a sealed shielding enclosure (refer to #20 is an open end of the shielding enclosure, such that the shielding enclosure is not sealed) with gas circulation or vacuum evacuation.
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein, further in view of KEONG et al (US2014/0183166A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KEONG, and further in view of LEE et al (US2023/0356327A1 previously cited) herein set forth as LEE.
Regarding claim 16, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters, and the welding mode is the keyhole welding mode.
However, the keyhole welding mode have already been disclosed in the claim 15 rejection above,
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 3mm to 5mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 3mm to 5mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough diameter size to conduct weld, can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Regarding claim 17, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Souze does not explicitly disclose wherein the height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters, and the welding mode is the keyhole welding mode.
However, the keyhole welding mode have already been disclosed in the claim 15 rejection above,
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 5mm to 10mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 5mm to 10mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough and control the opening diameter size to conduct weld, can have better control on penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of Souze, Klein and KEONG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Souze does not discloses wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw, a spring pin, or a spring biased pin, wherein the height is 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is greater than 3 kilowatts in the keyhole welding mode, and the height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is less than 3 kilowatts in the conduction welding mode.
In the similar field of weld jig, KEONG further discloses wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw (refer to screw member as #414 in paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Souze’s plasma protection fixture with wherein the mechanical fastener is a turn screw (refer to screw member as #414 in paragraph 0046), as taught by KEONG, in order to provide a more secure and stronger fastener, such that the workpieces would not accidentally get loose during the welding processes.
In the similar field of laser welding, Klein discloses the power of the laser beam is greater than 2 kilowatts (refer to Paragraph 0029 cited: “…when a remote beam laser welding system utilizes a laser beam having a power level of approximately 2 kW or greater, the laser-induced plasma (e.g., keyhole plasma 21 existing inside the keyhole and/or plasma plume 23 existing outside the keyhole, as shown in FIG. 1) generated during penetration acts as an impediment to further penetration…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of laser power is greater than 2 kilowatts, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that it would the laser can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved and would increase the marketability of the invention.
In the similar field of laser welding, LEE discloses wherein the height is 5 millimeters or less (refer to Paragraph 0030 cited: “…the seating portion is seated above the lower can as the insertion portion of the jig brings the electrode tab into close contact with the inner bottom surface of the lower can, a height (h) of the insertion portion is 5 mm or less, and an inner diameter of the hole formed in the insertion portion is in a range from 0.25 mm to 1.5 mm and, more specifically, a range from 0.53 mm to 1.5 mm, and the inner bottom surface of the lower can and the electrode tab are welded during the welding process such that a welding region is formed at one point …”).
LEE does not discloses the specific range of 5mm to 10mm of height.
However, since LEE discloses range that overlapped the range disclosed by the instant application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of height to be 5mm to 10mm, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (Refer to MPEP 2131.03), such that the laser have enough diameter size to conduct weld, can have better penetration into the joint of the workpieces, such that a better weld can be achieved.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souze et al (US2016/0303688A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Souze, in view of Klein et al (US2008/0296271A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Klein, and further in view of KEONG et al (US2014/0183166A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KEONG.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of Souze, Klein and KEONG discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 15, Souze further discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) defines a plurality of the opening (refer to plurality of #34 opening in fig.2), which are spaced apart on the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) from a first fixture side (refer to the two clamp #50 in fig.2) to a second fixture side (refer to the two clamp #50 in fig.2).
Souze does not discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture does not include a gas supply port and does not include a gas evacuation port, and wherein the laser welding system does not include a tubular enclosure, a gas supply port, a gas evacuation port, an isolator, an active gas containment and evacuation.
In the similar field of laser welding system, North discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#110, fig.1) does not include a gas supply port and does not include a gas evacuation port, and wherein the laser welding system does not include a tubular enclosure, a gas supply port, a gas evacuation port, an isolator, an active gas containment and evacuation.
PNG
media_image3.png
418
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replace Souze’s plasma protection fixture with North’s plasma protection fixture, in order to provide a wider opening and thinner fixture, that would reduce the material required to manufacture the fixture, and provide a wide view angle to observe the welding process, such that would reduce to complexity of identifying defected weld.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 25th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…Independent claim 1 recites, among other things, "the plasma protection fixture defining an opening from a first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to a second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture so that the opening receives the laser beam" ... "the opening having a perimeter that surrounds and is spaced apart from the weld and wherein the first planar surface extends from the perimeter," ... "the plasma protection fixture has a height, measured from the first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to the second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture, above the surface of at least the first workpiece about the perimeter of the opening that is different based on the power of the laser beam", which is not suggested by any of the references relied in the rejections under 35 USC 103…”, Remark Page 8-9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that Souze does disclose a height for the plasma protection fixture (#18, fig.1), and furthermore, in fig 1 also indicated the fixture is to contain spark (#46 in fig.1) generated by the welding, such that the obviousness is to increase the height of the fixture (#18, fig.1) with spark (#46 in fig.1) generated by the higher laser power (#38, fig.1). Furthermore, there is no other limitation cited in the rejected claim that provide any structural limitation that such height is adjustable. Therefore, such adjustment of fixture height according to the laser power would be well known to a person skilled in the art to use a greater height as, higher laser power would generate spark that eject higher.
The applicants argue: “…Independent claim 15 recites, among other things, "the laser welder operable in a welding mode, the welding mode including a keyhole welding mode and a conduction welding mode" ... "the plasma protection fixture defining an opening from a first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to a second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture so that the opening receives the laser beam" ... "the perimeter of the opening surrounds and is spaced apart from the weld path that is defined within the opening weld and wherein the first planar surface extends from the perimeter," ... "height of the plasma protection fixture, measured from the first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to the second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture, that is configured to inhibit the laminar flow of the secondary gas from disturbing weld plasma along the weld path", which is not suggested by any of the references relied in the rejections under 35 USC 103…”, Remark Page 9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that 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). In this case, the Klein’s reference is only used to disclose keyhole welding and the direction of the secondary gas system blowing; KEONG’s reference discloses the fixture bore coupling system, all the other limitations already disclosed by Souze’s reference. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field of welding, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them, such that would take advantages of Klein’s keyhole welding and KEONG’s coupling system in Souze’s invention.
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggests a fixture having a plasma protection fixture opening perimeter spaced from the weld - and the resulting advantage of plasma stability (Claims 1-20).…”, Remark Page 9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that one Souze’s plasma fixture is opening perimeter space from the weld, noted that the opening perimeter of “opening end #20” in fig.1.
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggests plasma fixture height that is different based on the power of the laser beam (Claims 1-14)..…”, Remark Page 9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant’s plasma fixture is an apparatus claims and is not a method claims therefore Souze disclosed a certain height and demonstrate such height of the fixture is to catch “spatter particles #46” in fig.1 that caused by the difference in power of the laser, hence the claimed teaching is disclosed. Furthermore there is no further claims limitation cited in the rejected claim to indicate such apparatus is structurally adjustable in height and such fixture is merely a design choice height or optimization choice during the design phase of the plasma fixture.
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggests a height of the plasma protection fixture, measured from the first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to the second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture, that is configured to inhibit the laminar flow of the secondary gas from disturbing weld plasma along the weld path (Claims 15-20)..…”, Remark Page 10.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant’s plasma fixture is a system claims and is not a method claims, Souze’s system disclosed a height of the plasma protection fixture, measured from the first planar surface of the plasma protection fixture to the second fixture planar surface of the plasma protection fixture, and there is no other cited limitation in the rejected claims that how inhabit the fixture to the laminar flow, since Souze’s system too has the two planar surfaces and the height, therefore Souze’s system too is inhabiting the laminar flow.
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggests a plasma protection fixture having a height defined based on laser weld mode (Claims 15-20)..…”, Remark Page 9.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant’s plasma fixture is a system and apparatus claims and is not a method claims therefore Souze disclosed a certain height and demonstrate such height of the fixture is to catch “spatter particles #46” in fig.1 that caused by the difference laser welding mode, hence the claimed teaching is disclosed. Furthermore there is no further claims limitation cited in the rejected claim to indicate such apparatus is structurally adjustable in height and such fixture is merely a design choice height or optimization choice during the design phase of the plasma fixture.
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggests a plasma protection fixture having a height of 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is greater than 3 kilowatt, and a height is 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is less than 3 kilowatts (Claim 14)...…”, Remark Page 10.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that 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). In this case, the secondary prior art LEE’s reference is used to disclose a range of height, all the other limitations already disclosed by the primary or other secondary references. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field laser welding as mentioned above, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them, since claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (Refer to MPEP 2131.03).
The applicants argue: “…No reference discloses or suggest a plasma protection fixture having a height of 3 millimeters to 5 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is greater than 3 kilowatts in the keyhole welding mode, and a height of 5 millimeters to 10 millimeters and the power of the laser beam is less than 3 kilowatts in the conduction welding mode (Claim 20)…”, Remark Page 10.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that 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). In this case, the secondary prior art LEE’s reference is used to disclose a range of height, all the other limitations already disclosed by the primary or other secondary references. Additionally, the references are related as the same technical field laser welding as mentioned above, therefore it would have been obvious to combine them, since claimed ranges "overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (Refer to MPEP 2131.03).
The applicants argue: “…De Souza discloses a tubular enclosure, a gas supply port, a gas evacuation port, and isolator at the bottom and, and active gas containment and evacuation. De Souza discloses a sealed shielding enclosure with gas circulation and vacuum evacuation. De Souza teaches enclosing the weld region and actively evacuating shielding gas. De Souza teaches a system to solve a different problem than the system set forth in the claims in this paper. Independent claims 1 and 15 as set forth in this paper are directed to a system that uses a non-sealed fixture, a perimeter spaced from the weld, a height of the plasma fixture that prevents plasma disruption (independent Claims 1 and 15)…”, Remark Page 10.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that Souza clearly discloses a tubular enclosure that had an open end therefore Souza’s fixture is not completely sealed. Second, the rejected claims are not method claims, since Souza teaches a height in Souza’s fixture, therefore Souza teaches the cited limitation in the rejected claims.
The applicants argue: “…A person skilled in the art would not be motivated modify De Souza (independent claim 1) or combine and modify De Souza with Klein et al and KEONG. (independent claim 15). The rejections do not sufficiently articulate a reason why a skilled artesian would remove De Souza's enclosure sealing structure. Nor is there an articulation as to why a person skilled in the art would abandoned De Souza's gas evacuation architecture and replace it with an open primary plasma height structure. Nor is there an articulation as to why a person skilled in the art would tune the plasma fixture height based upon laser power or keyhole welding mode and a conduction welding mode. De Souza solves problems of splatter containment, gas evacuation, and battery terminal welding. These problems are different than those solved by independent claims 1 and 15 as set forth in this paper which include power mode dependent plasma shielding (claims 1 and 15) plasma stability under laminar gas flow (claim 15). Therefore, there is no clear motivation to modify the primary reference De Souza alone or in combination with the other references relied on in the rejections…”, Remark Page 11.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicants argue: “…De Souza teaches away by teaching to enclose the weld region tightly with an isolator contact…”, Remark Page 11.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that Souze’s fixture had an opening end #20 in figs, therefore Souze’s fixture does has an open perimeter.
The applicants argue: “…Modifying De Souza's enclosure system with an open system as recited in independent claims 1 and 15 as set forth in this paper would render the resultant system inoperative for providing a sealed enclosure for controlling splatter, which is an intended purpose and principle of operation of De Souza's system…”, Remark Page 11.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that 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). In this case, Souze does disclose an open system (refer to opening end #20 in fig.1), therefore the argument is invalid, also Claim 15 modification and combination of teaches are involve “power of the laser”, “the flow path of the secondary gas system” and “the coupling system”. There is no modification on open or close enclosure involved.
furthermore, Claim 1 does not involve such modification that is argued too.
The applicants argue: “…The rejections rely on the modification of overlapping range regarding height and power (wattage) to arrive at limitations in the claims. However, optimization is obvious only when the variable is recognized as result-effective. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Although, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that in some cases it might be "obvious to try". However, in this case the prior art does not suggest what is obvious to try to optimize for what claims feature for what advantage or property. Nor does the prior art suggest what would be the reasonable expected result from trying…”, Remark Page 12.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the argued claims are not method claims, they are apparatus/system claims, the argument on modifying height of the fixture is already addressed above, since Souze already disclosed a certain height, modifying such height to provide a certain advantages is obviousness within optimization and obvious to try, since Souze height is also to provide plasma protection (refer to Paragraph 0028 cited: “…A plurality of weld spatter particles 46 are shown being expelled from the laser weld 36 that are formed when the laser beam 38 heats the parts 40 and 42. The particles 46 are contained within the shielding enclosure assembly 16 and may also be removed from the tubular enclosure 18 by being drawn through the gas evacuation port 30. …”).
The applicants argue: “…In this regard, if the height 178 of the perimeter 176 of the opening 162 is less than about 3 millimeters (mm) in the keyhole welding mode or less than about 5 millimeters (mm) in the conduction welding mode, the flow of the gas F from the secondary gas system 140 will push the weld plasma 125 away from the area surrounding the keyhole 126, which results in an unstable keyhole 126 and reduced weld penetration depth. If the height 178 of the perimeter 176 of the opening 162 is greater than about 5 millimeters (mm) in the keyhole welding mode or greater than about 10 millimeters (mm) in the conduction welding mode, the flow of the gas F from the secondary gas system 140 will be obstructed by the plasma protection fixture 104 and there will not be enough gas flow proximate the surface 122 to blow the plume 130 away from in front of the weld plasma 125, resulting in the attenuation of the laser beam 120 by the plume 130 and weld inconsistency. In this example, the laser welding machine 102 (FIG. 1) is in the keyhole welding mode, and the height 178 of the perimeter 176 of the opening 162 of the plasma protection fixture 104 is about 3 millimeters (mm) to about 5 millimeters (mm).
The prior are does not suggest the height and the wattage (keyhole mode greater than 3 kW)(conduction mode less than 3kW) as the result-effect variable to ensure weld consistency and the weld penetration depth and to avoid an unstable keyhole and reduced penetration depth in the keyhole welding mode, and avoiding attenuation of the laser beam by the plume and weld inconsistency in the conduction welding mode. The prior art does not suggest the advantages stated above that must be considered in determining obviousness under 35 USC 103. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). In Graham, the Supreme Court held that objective indicia of nonobviousness - including the advantages of the claimed invention - must be considered as part of the § 103 analysis. Leo Pharm. Prods. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Significant advantages over prior art supported nonobviousness). The prior art does not suggest the subject matter including the ranges set in claims 2-3, 14, and 20 as set forth in this paper. Withdrawal of the rejection of claims 2-3, 14, and 20 is respectfully requested.…”, Remark Page 12.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is expressed that Since the modification are only involve “ranges of height” and “power of laser”, and the arguments above is already addressed. Since Souze teaches a certain “height” and a certain “power of laser” already, modifying Souze’s system with other prior art of records would be obvious. Not to mention the advantages and reason for modification do not need to be solely form Souze or similar to applicant’s advantages or benefit, if prior art of records other than Souze teaches other advantages or benefits, such that would also can be the reason to modify.
The applicants argue: “…regarding erroneous application of the law … (summarized)”, Remark Page 13.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that these section is a summary of all arguments or similar arguments argued perviously, since the responses above is applicable to the argument in this section, please refer to all the argument responses above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 August 23th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights