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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 19-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are examined as follow:
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, 4-5 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 (#34, 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 (#34, fig.1) defining an opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) through a first planar surface (refer to “first surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) to a second fixture planar surface (refer to “second surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) so that the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) receives the laser beam (#38, fig.1), the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) having a perimeter (refer to #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 the perimeter of #34 in fig.1), and the plasma protection fixture (#16, fig.1) has a height (refer to “height” annotated in fig.1) measured from the first planar surface (refer to “first surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) to the second fixture planar surface (refer to “second surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, 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 #34 in fig.1) of the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in 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 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 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).
Regarding claim 5, Souze discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Souze further discloses wherein the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.2) defines a plurality of the opening (refer to multiple opening for each #34 in fig.2), which are spaced apart on the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.2) from a first fixture side to a second fixture side (refer to the two side of #50 in fig.2).
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 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 newly 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 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 (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_image3.png
528
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
303
318
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 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_image5.png
405
563
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 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 (#22, 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 (#22, 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 perviously 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_image6.png
493
463
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 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_image7.png
543
599
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 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.
Claims 15 and 18-20 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 (#34, 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 (#34, fig.1) defining an opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) through a first planar surface (refer to “first surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) to a second fixture planar surface (refer to “second surface” annotated in fig.1) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, fig.1) so that the opening receives the laser beam (#38, fig.1), the coupling system (#18 and #50, fig.2) defined about a perimeter of the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1), the perimeter of the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1) surrounds and is spaced apart from the weld path (#36, fig.1) that is defined within the opening (refer to “opening” annotated in fig.1), the plasma protection fixture (#34, 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 of the opening (#22, fig.1 and 2) refer to the height of #18 in fig.1 and 2) of the plasma protection fixture (#34, 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).
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_image4.png
303
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
528
567
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 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_image7.png
543
599
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 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 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).
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 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 (refer to fig.3). Wherein the plasma protection fixture (#34, 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).
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.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 24th 2026 that overcame the Notification of 112f on “coupling system” in the previous office action. However, the 112f on “secondary gas system” remain standing (refer to the respond to argument below for details).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments filed March 24th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interview Summary, please review the interview summary filed on February 23th 2026, Examiner indicate claim 14 and 20 amendment overcome the prior rejection only, not the prior art of records. A new ground of rejection on claim 14 and 20 had written based on the prior art of records previously cited.
Regarding the 112f interpretation, Applicant argued: “…The 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. Applicant have amend claims 4 and 15 adding sufficient structure, a secondary gas system comprising a discharge conduit, to overcome the application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to claims 4 and 15. FIG. 2 at 140 clearly shows a discharge conduit configured to direct a flow of a gas over the surface of at least the first workpiece…” Remarks Page 1.
Examiner’s response: the applicant’s arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the citation of the “discharge conduit” does not provide further corresponding structure to explain what actually “secondary gas system” is. The “discharge conduit” is a correspond structure that will not define what “secondary gas system” is, it merely something that the “secondary gas system” uses , but it still does not explain what actually “second gas system” is. Therefore 112f is need for examiner to understand and able to prosecute the application accordingly.
Regarding the argument of the 103 rejection on claim 1 and 15, applicant argued: “…no reference discloses:
1. a fixture having a plasma protection fixture opening perimeter spaced from the weld.
2. plasma fixture height that is different based on the power of the laser beam.
3. “… 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…”.
4. 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
….” (summarized) Remark page 2-3.
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 discloses “a fixture having a plasma protection fixture opening perimeter spaced from the weld.” Refer to fig.1 and/or fig.2.
First of all there is no corresponding structure to indicate the height is adjustable in the present application, second the modification of such limitation is in view of the combination of Klein and LEE. Since there is not correspond structure for adjustment, therefore the combination of Klein and LEE would teach on such limitation.
Souze teaches “… 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…”, when interpretating Souze’s “insulator #34” as the plasma protection fixture, then Souze teaches such limitation.
Klein teaches the a laser power range that overlap with the claimed range cited in present application, and LEE teaches a range of height that is overlapping with the claimed range cited in the present application.
Regarding the argument on improper hindsight reconstruction is mooted, because a new ground of rejection is made based on different mapping. (refer to rejection above). Furthermore, the secondary gas system is mapped to be the air knife #52 which exactly teaches the similar setting as the present application (refer to Souze’s fig.1 and present applicant’s fig.2). Also, 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).
Regarding the argument on no motivation to modify overlapping ranges in the prior art, applicant argued: “…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 6.
Examiner’s response: the applicant’s arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the reason to combine is cited in the obviousness statement, and the reason is different than the reason that present application is claiming. Souze in view of Klein because of modification for a better penetration into the joint of the workpieces.
Regarding the argument on the proposed modification would destroy the Souze’s invention, applicant argued: “…Souze is an enclosed system, cannot modifying with opening system,…” (summarized) Remark 5-6.
Examiner’s response: the applicant’s arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that Souze is not a complete enclosed system. Souze is opened as #22 in fig.1. furthermore when you mapping the gas system to be Souze’s “air knife”, such modification would not affect Souze’s invention at all.
Regarding the argument on no motivation to modified overlap range and it was not recognized as a result-effective, Applicant argued: “… modification would not be result effective and lack of motivation to modify…” (summarized) Remark 6-7.
Examiner’s response: the applicant’s arguments above are not persuasive.
It is pointed out; the motivation of each modification is already cited in each obviousness statement, furthermore each obviousness statement is clear indicated what benefit that such modification is for. Furter more, the reason for modification or combine would be different that present application claimed.
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 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 May 1st 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights