DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 02/24/2026. Claims 1-5, 10-18, 21 are pending in this application. As directed, claim 1 has been amended; claims 6-9, 19-20 cancelled; claim 21 has been newly added.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/17/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Arguments: (Regarding the independent claim 1 – see details the Remarks dated 02/24/2026 on pages 8-10)
First, Applicant alleged that “The Examiner's assertion that Geisler teaches "retaining the position" through clamping directly contradicts the claim requirement that retention occurs through tack welds, not through continued clamping.”, see details on pages 8-9 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026.
Next, Applicant alleged that the secondary reference Motomi is non-analogous art, see details on page 9 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026.
Applicant further alleged that the combination of Motomi with Geisler is improper, see details on page 9 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026.
Additionally, Applicant alleged that the tertiary reference Veldman fails to cure the deficiencies because Veldman does not teach clamping and tack welding at a first location, unclamping such that components are held only by tack welds, moving to a second location, and performing final welding while unclamped, see details on page 10 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026.
Finally, Applicant alleged that the claimed method of using tack welds to hold components during transport and final welding provides unexpected advantages not recognized in the prior art, see details on page 10 of the Remarks dated 02/24/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, 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 primary reference Geisler discloses retaining position of the first component and the second component because Geisler Par.0028 discloses retaining the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 by clamping one to another, specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another”. However, the primary reference Geisler does not disclose retaining position by forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component. The secondary reference Motomi is applied to teach retaining position by forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component. Since both the primary reference Geisler and the secondary reference Motomi are directed to welding of vehicle components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Geisler and Motomi, for at least, the benefits of ensuring proper alignment and fit of the welding pieces before the final welding process, and avoiding irregular movement of the welding pieces. This leads to prevent distortion, control movement during welding, and maintain correct joint gap; and therefore, achieve a strong and quality weld.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the secondary reference Motomi is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the secondary reference Motomi is analogous art because first, it is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of welding vehicle components, and second, the secondary reference Motomi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is using tack welds to hold the components in an aligned position prior to forming finishing welds. Therefore, the secondary reference Motomi is analogous art.
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). In this case, the primary reference Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including a method of laser welding a recliner assembly comprising: positioning a first component of a vehicle seat recliner mechanism with respect to a second component of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism; retaining a position of the first component and the second component; and fixing the first component to the second component, the fixing including forming a finishing weld between the first component and the second component by laser welding the first component to the second component; clamping the first component and the second component to a fixture before the retaining. The primary reference Geisler does not explicitly disclose: forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component; unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the tack welds; wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture; wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location; wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and wherein the method further comprises: cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing; and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining. However, the secondary reference Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited) teaches forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component; unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the tack welds; wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture; wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location; wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and wherein the method further comprises: moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining. It is noted that a tack weld is a small, temporary weld used to hold metal pieces together in the correct position and alignment before the final welding is done. Thus, adding the step of forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component before the final welding, as taught by Motomi, will not destroy the invention of Geisler. In contrast, the modification would ensure proper alignment and fit of the welding pieces before the final welding process and avoid the irregular move of the welding pieces; thus, it helps to prevent distortion, control movement during welding, and maintain the correct joint gap; and therefore, achieving a strong and quality weld. Furthermore, by making the positioning and the retaining are performed at the first location, the fixing is performed at the second location, and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining, as taught by Motomi, will not destroy the invention of Geisler. In constrast, the modification would allow for optimized workflow, reduce downtime, ensuring high-quality results. The modification would also help to optimize operation time in a case where parts need to be adjusted or realigned after tack welding, the final weld station can be used for other tasks while the tack-welded parts are being worked on. Thus, improving the overall efficiency. Geisler in view of Motomi does not explicitly teaches the method further comprises cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing. The tertiary reference Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) is applied to teach that the welding method comprising cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing. Adding Veldsman’s teachings to Geisler in view of Motomi will not destroy the invention; in contrast, the modification would allow simultaneously weld and cool a workpiece for preventing weld distortion, maintaining the integrity of the weld joint, and ensuring the overall quality and strength of the finished product.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the tertiary reference Veldman fails to cure the deficiencies because Veldman does not teach clamping and tack welding at a first location, unclamping such that components are held only by tack welds, moving to a second location, and performing final welding while unclamped, Examiner respectfully disagrees because 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, as explained previously, the combination of Geisler and Motomi teaches substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including clamping and tack welding at a first location, unclamping such that components are held only by tack welds, moving to a second location, and performing final welding while unclamped. However, the combination of Geisler and Motomi does not teach the method further comprises cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing. The tertiary reference Veldsman is only applied to teach the features of cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, and the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing. Adding Veldsman’s teachings to the combination of Geisler and Motomi will not destroy the invention; in contrast, the modification would allow simultaneously weld and cool a workpiece for preventing weld distortion, maintaining the integrity of the weld joint, and ensuring the overall quality and strength of the finished product.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed method of using tack welds to hold components during transport and final welding provides unexpected advantages not recognized in the prior art, Examiner respectfully disagrees because the fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case, using tack welds to temporarily hold components prior to final welding is well-known, conventional technique, and any benefit during transport is expected and inherent, not “unexpected”. MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). Tack welding is a well-known technique used to temporarily secure components prior to final welding. Any resulting stability, fixture availability, thermal management and quality control during welding process, handling and transportation are inherent and predictable results of such temporary fixation. Applicant has not provided objective evidence demonstrating that the alleged advantages are unexpected or different in kind from those inherently achieved by tack welding. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”).
For given above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections for the independent claim 1 is maintained in this office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added claim 21 are the same as those presented for the independent claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s response to the independent claim 1 is applicable to the independent claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 10-18, 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 14), claim 21 (line 13) recite the limitation “the first and second component”. This should be changed to “the first and second components” or “the first component and the second component”.
Claims 2-5, 10-18 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Geisler discloses a method of laser welding a recliner assembly (Geisler Par.0014 discloses: “A further subject of the present invention is a recliner for adjusting the position of a backrest of a seat, with a recliner center region and adapter plates in which the adaptor plates are respectively joined by at least one laser-welded seam to the recliner center region”; therefore, Geisler discloses a method of laser welding a recliner assembly) comprising:
positioning a first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “FIG. 2 shows a recliner 13 which has a so-called recliner center region 15 which contains a means with which the position of the backrest may be altered relative to the seat surface. Adapters 16, 17 are positively arranged on the recliner, the positive material connection being carried out according to the invention in the present case by laser-welding.”; therefore, the first component can be the adapter 16 or the adapter 17) of a vehicle seat recliner mechanism (recliner 13, Geisler Fig.2) with respect to a second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism (recliner 13, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Claim 3 discloses: “the plurality of parts include positioning means in the region of at least one of the joining surfaces that fix the position of at least two parts of the plurality of parts relative to one another.”, Geisler Par.0009 discloses: “the parts in the region of the joining surfaces comprise means which fix the position of the respective parts relative to one another”, and Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape”; therefore, Geisler discloses positioning the first component of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism with respect to the second component of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism);
retaining a position of the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Par.0028 discloses retaining the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 by clamping one to another, specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another”; therefore, Geisler discloses retaining position of the first component and the second component); and
fixing the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) to the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2), the fixing including forming a finishing weld between the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) by laser welding the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) to the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Pars.0019 & 0028 disclose fixing the recliner center region 15 to the adapter 16 by laser welding, specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “As a result, it is possible that all parts to be joined, i.e. the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another and welded”, Geisler Par.0019 discloses: “a method for positively joining two parts in which a tab, which is arranged on the first part, is bent in the direction of the second part after joining together the two parts and is then laser-welded thereto”);
clamping the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) to a fixture (“fixture”, Geisler Claim 5) before the retaining (it is noted that the retaining step is the step of performing tack welds, as indicated by Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Geisler teaches clamping the first and the second components before any of the welding operation; specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses retaining the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 by clamping one to another before welding, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another and welded”, Geisler Par.0009 discloses: “the parts in the region of the joining surfaces comprise means which fix the position of the respective parts relative to one another, so that the parts are able to be put into a clamping device, clamped against one another”, and Geisler Claim 5 discloses: “the positions of the parts are configured to be fixed to one another in a fixture”; therefore, Geisler discloses clamping the first component and the second component to the fixture before the retaining)
Geisler does not explicitly disclose:
forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component
unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the plurality of tack welds,
wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture,
wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location,
wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and
wherein the method further comprises:
cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing; and
moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining.
Motomi teaches a welding method (Motomi Figs.1-8):
forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) (Motomi Par.0050 teaches: “The slide plate 13 with the jigs 11-1 through 11-4 loaded thereon is pushed forward, as shown at (5) in FIG. 7, by a slide drive means, where the mutually contacting welding edges of an underbody 3 transported to the side-member tacking station 1, and side-members 4 transported by the first transporter robot 10-3 are clamped in four locations: two locations each, fore and aft. In this clamped state, the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5”; since Motomi teaches the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5, therefore, Motomi teaches forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component),
unclamping the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) are held only by the plurality of tack welds (it is noted that the fixing is the final weld, it is further noted that the primary reference Geisler already discloses clamping the first component and the second component to a fixture before all of the welding steps, as cited and explained above; in this case, Motomi also teaches clamping the first component and the second component to a fixture before the retaining, and Motomi further teaches unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing; specifically, Motomi Par.0048 teaches: “These clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4 clamp fore and aft portions of welding edges on the left and right sides of an underbody 3 to fore and aft portions of the lower welding edges of side-members 4, while at the same time positioning them relative to each other, and to a stationary system that includes the ground.”, and Motomi Par.0050 teaches: “In this clamped state, the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5, after which the clamps of the clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4 are released and the jigs are retracted slightly, along with the slide plate 13, from the location indicated by the dashed lines in FIG. 7 to the location indicated by the solid lines, where they wait for the next underbody 3 and side-members 4 that are to be tack-welded.”; therefore, Motomi teaches after the tack welds (i.e., the retaining), unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture; moreover, Motomi Par.0002 teaches: “The main members in the body of a vehicle are an underbody, left and right side-members and a roof. These main members are relative-positioned using a variety of positioning jigs, and are tacked in the positioned state by spot-welding using welding robots, after which final welding is performed”; therefore, Motomi teaches welding method for vehicle components, wherein the tack welds are formed before the final weld; additionally, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”, and Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”; therefore, Motomi Figs.1, 5, 8 and Pars.0046, 0050, 0054 teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are clamped, and the side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 at the station 1, then unclamp side-members 4 and the underbody 3 after tack-welding, and the unclamped side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are transported to the station 5, and the final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3 is performed at the station 5; thus, Motomi teaches unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing (i.e., the final weld) such that the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are held only by the plurality of tack welds),
wherein the fixing is performed with the first (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) being unclamped from the fixture (Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “Next, the roof coarse placement station 5 will be described with reference to FIG. 8. The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3.”, it is further noted that the transporter robot 32 shown in Fig.8 of Motomi is for transporting a roof 31, and robots 33-1 and 33-2 are welding robots, according to Motomi Par.0054; thus, Motomi Figs.1, 5, 8 and Pars.0046, 0050, 0054 teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped after the tack welds; Motomi Fig.8 also shows the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped when the final weld is performed; therefore, Motomi teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped from the fixture when the fixing (i.e., the final weld) is performed),
wherein the positioning and the retaining are performed at a first location (station 1, Motomi Fig.5) (it is noted that the positioning and the retaining are the positioning step and the performing tack welds step, as indicated above in Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”; therefore, Motomi teaches the positioning and the retaining are performed at the station 1),
wherein the fixing is performed at a second location (station 5, Motomi Fig.5) (it is noted that the fixing is the final welding step by laser welding, as indicated above in Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”; therefore, Motomi the fixing (i.e., the final weld) is performed at the station 5),
wherein the method further comprises: moving the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) from the first location (station 1, Motomi Fig.5) to the second location (station 5, Motomi Fig.5) after the retaining (it is noted that the retaining is the performing tack welds step, as indicated by Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”, and Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”, therefore, Motomi Pars.0046 & 0054 teaches side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 at the station 1, and the final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3 is performed at the station 5; thus, Motomi teaches moving the first component and the second component from station 1 to station 5 after the tack welds step)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler, by adding the teachings of forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component, unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the plurality of tack welds, wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture, wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location, wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining, as taught by Motomi, in order to ensure proper alignment and fit of the welding pieces before the final welding process and avoid the irregular move of the welding pieces; thus, it helps to prevent distortion, control movement during welding, and maintain the correct joint gap; and therefore, achieving a strong and quality weld. Furthermore, by making the positioning and the retaining are performed at the first location, the fixing is performed at the second location, and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining would allow for optimized workflow, reduce downtime, ensuring high-quality results. The modification would also help to optimize operation time in a case where parts need to be adjusted or realigned after tack welding but before the final weld, the final weld station can be used for other tasks while the tack-welded parts are being worked on. Thus, improving the overall efficiency.
Geisler in view of Motomi does not teach wherein the method further comprises:
cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing
Veldsman teaches a method of laser welding (Veldsman Fig.5) comprising:
cooling (cooling by the coolant nozzle 20, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0056) a region (heated weld zone 52, Veldsman Fig.5) including at least a portion of the finishing weld (the heated weld zone 52 includes at least a portion of the finishing weld) by directing a fluid (Veldsman Par.0057 teaches: “The coolant nozzle 20 is arranged to eject the pressurised stream of carbon dioxide at a high, preferably supersonic, velocity”) at the region (heated weld zone 52, Veldsman Fig.5), the cooling (cooling by the coolant nozzle 20, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0056) being performed concurrently with the fixing (it is noted that the fixing is the process of performing the finishing weld by laser; in this case, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0054-0057 teaches the cooling being performed concurrently with the laser welding, Veldsman Par.0054 teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the welding apparatus 10 being used to simultaneously weld and cool a work 50”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, by adding the teaching of cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing, as taught by Veldsman, in order to simultaneously weld and cool a workpiece for preventing weld distortion, maintaining the integrity of the weld joint, and ensuring the overall quality and strength of the finished product.
Regarding claim 2, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Geisler also discloses:
wherein the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) are selected from the group consisting of: an upper bracket plate (Geisler Fig.2 shows the adapter 16 is upper bracket plate), a lower bracket plate, a recliner heart (Geisler Fig.2 shows the recliner center region 15 includes the recliner heart), an encapsulating ring, a gear plate, a guide plate, a spring bracket, a stop bracket, and any combination thereof [it is noted that the limitation “are selected from the group consisting of: an upper bracket plate, a lower bracket plate, a recliner heart, an encapsulating ring, a gear plate, a guide plate, a spring bracket, a stop bracket, and any combination thereof” is in alternative form].
Regarding claim 3, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 2, Geisler also discloses:
wherein the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) includes the upper bracket plate (Geisler Fig.2 shows the adapter 16 is upper bracket plate), and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) includes the recliner heart (Geisler Fig.2 shows the recliner center region 15 includes the recliner heart).
Regarding claim 4, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 2, Geisler also discloses:
wherein the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) includes the lower bracket plate (Geisler Fig.2 shows the adapter 17 is the lower bracket plate), and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) includes the recliner heart (Geisler Fig.2 shows the recliner center region 15 includes the recliner heart).
Regarding claim 12, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Geisler also discloses:
wherein the finishing weld includes a rim weld, a lap weld (Geisler Fig.2 shows the laser-welded seams 18 formed by overlapping the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 or the adapter 17; thus, Geisler discloses the finishing weld includes lap weld), or both rim and lap welds [it is noted that the limitation “a rim weld, a lap weld, or both rim and lap welds” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Schmitz et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0329674 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first component includes the guide plate, and the second component includes the encapsulating ring.
Schmitz teaches a method of laser welding a recliner assembly (Schmitz Figs.1-2):
wherein the first component (first plate 54, Schmitz Fig.2) includes the guide plate (the first plate 54 is interpreted as guide plate), and the second component (encapsulating ring 28, Schmitz Fig.2) includes the encapsulating ring (Schmitz Par.0063 teaches: “The first plate 54 may be rotationally fixed relative to the seat bottom 12 and may be attached to the encapsulating ring 28”, Schmitz Par.0019 teaches: “A weld is between the body of the encapsulating ring and the first plate.”, and Schmitz Par.0027 teaches: “A laser beam contacts a portion of the first plate and a portion of the body to attach the encapsulating ring to the first plate”; therefore, Schmitz teaches laser welding between the first plate 54 and the encapsulating ring 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of laser welding between the guide plate and the encapsulating ring, as taught by Schmitz, in order to weld the first plate to the encapsulating ring in a way that the first plate can be rotationally fixed relative to the seat bottom so as to provide a recliner mechanism that reduces manufacturing time thereof and reduces impairment thereto during manufacturing, as recognized by Schmitz [Schmitz, Par.0004].
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Owaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0361033 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds.
Owaki teaches a method of laser welding (Owaki Fig.1B or Fig.5):
wherein the plurality of tack welds (the plurality of tack welds at joint portion 3, Owaki Fig.1B or Fig.5) includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds (Owaki Fig.5 shows substantially equally spaced apart tack welds formed between the first joint 1 and the second joint 2) or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds (it is noted that the limitation “substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds” are in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination; it is further noted that the term “substantially” herein is defined in Instant Application in Par.0094 of the Specification and also shown in the Drawings Figs.12-13 of the Instant Application, see plurality of tack welds 310b and 310c in Figs.12-13 of the Instant Application; therefore, the limitation “substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds” as recited in claim 10 is understandable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds, as taught by Owaki, in order to enhance the holding forces between workpieces before the final weld; thus, ensuring joint stability, and creating a high-quality final weld because uneven spacing can cause inconsistent stress as the metal heats and cools, leading to warping, misalignment, and potential weld defects.
Regarding claim 13, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds includes laser welding
Owaki teaches a method of laser welding (Owaki Fig.1B or Fig.5):
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds includes laser welding (Owaki Par.0019 discloses: “In the tack welding method, a filler metal W is supplied to the joint portion 3, laser light L is deflected and irradiated to the joint portion 3, and the filler metal W is cut with the laser light L to be welded to the joint portion 3”; therefore, Owaki teaches the forming the plurality of tack welds includes laser welding).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the forming the plurality of tack welds includes laser welding, as taught by Owaki, in order to achieve high speed, precision, and minimal heat input for the welding process. Thus, this helps reducing the need for post-processing and increasing the productivity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Morenko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0053098 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes rim welds, lap welds or both rim and lap welds.
Morenko teaches a method of laser welding (Morenko Fig.2):
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes rim welds, lap welds (Morenko Par.0014 teaches: “the annular details 21 and 22 are axially aligned in overlapping relationship so as to form a lap joint therebetween and tack welded together to minimise the gap between the details 21 and 22”; therefore, Morenko teaches the tack welds includes lap welds) or both rim and lap welds [it is noted that the limitation “rim welds, lap welds or both rim and lap welds” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the tack welds includes lap welds, as taught by Morenko, in order to minimize the gap between two welding components, as recognized by Morenko [Morenko, Par.0014]; thus, achieving strong and quality weld.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Kar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,632,401 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds generates less heat than forming the finishing weld.
Kar teaches a method of laser welding (Kar Abstract & Col.5 lines 63-68):
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds generates less heat than forming the finishing weld (Kar Col.5 lines 63-68 teaches: “the tack welds may be placed, using a power level of about 1000 watts (each of the tack welds having a dwell time of about 0.1 seconds). After the tack welds are completed, the power level of the laser is set up to about 1250 watts and interface 70 is circumferentially welded”; therefore, Kar teaches the tack welds use less power than the finishing weld; thus, the forming the tack welds generates less heat than forming the finishing weld).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the forming the tack welds generates less heat than forming the finishing weld, as taught by Kar, in order to reduce heat input, minimizing the risk of distortion or warping because tack welds serve as temporary joints to hold materials in place during the final welding process; thus, tack welds are designed to be easily removable and do not need to create a strong, permanent bond.
Regarding claim 15, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld.
Kar teaches a method of laser welding (Kar Abstract & Col.5 lines 63-68):
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld (Kar Col.5 lines 63-68 teaches: “the tack welds may be placed, using a power level of about 1000 watts (each of the tack welds having a dwell time of about 0.1 seconds). After the tack welds are completed, the power level of the laser is set up to about 1250 watts and interface 70 is circumferentially welded”; therefore, Kar teaches the tack welds use less power than the finishing weld).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the forming the tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld, as taught by Kar, in order to reduce heat input, minimizing the risk of distortion or warping because tack welds serve as temporary joints to hold materials in place during the final welding process; thus, tack welds are designed to be easily removable and do not need to create a strong, permanent bond.
Regarding claim 16, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein forming the plurality of tack welds includes applying power for about 0.5 seconds per tack weld.
Kar teaches a method of laser welding (Kar Abstract & Col.5 lines 63-66):
wherein forming the plurality of tack welds includes applying power for about 0.1 seconds per tack weld instead of about 0.5 seconds per tack weld as required by the claim (Kar Col.5 lines 63-66 teaches: “the tack welds may be placed, using a power level of about 1000 watts (each of the tack welds having a dwell time of about 0.1 seconds).”; therefore, Kar teaches forming the tack welds includes applying power for about 0.1 seconds per tack weld).
Regarding the limitation “about 0.5 seconds per tack weld” as required by the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time for applying power per tack weld of Kar from 0.1 seconds per tack weld to 0.5 seconds per tack weld as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Instant Application Par.0021 indicating: “In some configurations, forming the tack welds includes applying power for about 0.5 seconds per tack weld”; however, Applicant does not provide criticality why 0.5 seconds per tack weld is better than other ranges, and Applicant does not provide any achievement by having the application time of 0.5 seconds per tack weld) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of forming the tack welds includes applying power for about 0.5 seconds per tack weld, as taught by modified Kar, in order to apply short power application to temporarily hold metal pieces together before a final weld. This temporary hold allows for precise alignment and positioning, ensuring the final weld is strong and consistent. Additionally, tack welding helps minimize distortion and warping during the welding process.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Ninnemann et al. (EP 3339017 A1, previously cited) and Brugger (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0008665 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 17, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds and forming the finishing weld is at a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min.
Ninnemann teaches a method of laser welding (Ninnemann Abstract):
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds is at a speed ranging of more than 4m/min instead of from about 2m/min to about 10m/min as required by the claim (Ninnemann Claim 3 teaches: “Method according to the claim 1, characterized in that the tack weld (3,8) is worked out by a resistance roller seam weld with an electrode force between 1.0 kN - 3.0 kN, more preferably 1.8 kN - 2.5 kN, and a welding speed more than 4.0 m/min.”; therefore, Ninnemann teaches forming the plurality of tack welds is at a speed ranging of more than 4.0 m/min)
Regarding the limitation “a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min” as required by the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding speed for tack welds of Ninnemann from “more than 4m/min” to “from about 2m/min to about 10m/min” as Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see Instant Application Par.0084 indicating: “the tack welds 310 may be formed at a speed of greater than or equal to about 2 m/min (e.g., greater than or equal to about 3 m/min, greater than or equal to about 4 m/min, greater than or equal to about 5 m/min, greater than or equal to about 6 m/min, greater than or equal to about 7 m/min, greater than or equal to about 8 m/min, greater than or equal to about 9 m/min). The speed may be less than or equal to about 10 m/min (e.g., less than or equal to about 9 m/min, less than or equal to about 8 m/min, less than or equal to about 7 m/min, less than or equal to about 6 m/min, less than or equal to about 5 m/min, less than or equal to about 4 m/min, or less than or equal to about 3 m/min)”; however, Applicant does not provide criticality why a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min is better than other ranges, and Applicant does not provide any achievement by having a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min) and since it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the forming the plurality of tack welds is at a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min, as taught by modified Ninnemann, in order to obtain a practical balance between achieving a decent speed and maintaining weld integrity. Thus, achieving a balance between weld quality, productivity, and material properties.
Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Ninnemann teaches the method as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the forming the finishing weld is at a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min
Brugger teaches a method of laser welding (Brugger Abstract & Par.0054):
wherein the forming the finishing weld is at a speed ranging from about 2m/min to about 10m/min (Brugger Par.0054 teaches “vw = 4-7.5 m/min”; it is noted that vw is the weld advancing speed, as indicated by Brugger Par.0061; thus, Brugger teaches the forming the finishing weld is at a speed ranging from about 4m/min to about 7.5m/min, which falls inside of the claimed range)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Ninnemann, by adding the teaching of the forming the finishing weld is at a speed ranging from about 4m/min to about 7.5m/min, as taught by Brugger, in order to create proper fusion with the previous weld layers (this can be tack welds) and the base material, ensuring good penetration for a strong joint because welding too fast might lead to insufficient penetration. The range of from about 4m/min to about 7.5m/min might help find the right balance between sufficient penetration and avoiding excessive heat input.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Murayama et al. (JP 2008043986 A, previously cited), Rieppel et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,084,246 A, previously cited) and Iwasaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0211491 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of tack welds and finishing welds have a depth of fusion ranging from about 0.25mm to about 3mm and a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm.
Murayama teaches a method of tack welding (Murayama Abstract):
wherein the plurality of tack welds have a depth of fusion ranging from about 0.25mm to about 3mm (Murayama Abstract teaches the method of performing tack welding, and Murayama Translated Document on page 6 paragraph 5 teaches: “fusion depth P=2.0mm”; therefore, Murayama teaches the tack welds have a depth of fusion is 2.0mm, which falls inside of the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the plurality of tack welds have a depth of fusion of about 2mm, as taught by Murayama, in order to provide adequate holding strength because the purpose of a tack weld is to hold the pieces in place and prevent distortion during welding, not to provide the primary structural strength of the joint. Therefore, a shallow depth of fusion can still achieve the desired holding strength.
Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Murayama teaches the method as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the plurality of tack welds have a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm, and finishing welds have a depth of fusion ranging from about 0.25mm to about 3mm and a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm.
Rieppel teaches a method of tack welding:
wherein the plurality of tack welds have a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm (Rieppel Claim 15 teaches: “wherein the pipe end elements are first rigidly secured together by tack welding”, and Rieppel Col.2 lines 13-17 teaches: “To weld an unusually narrow joint, usually in single pass operation, where the actual joint or gap depth to width ratio is from about 3 to 7:1 (preferably 4.5 to 65:1), and where the fusion zone depth to width ratio is of the general range of 2 to 1 or more.”; thus, Rieppel teaches to tack weld, the fusion zone depth to width ratio is of the general range of 2 to 1; it is noted that Geisler in view of Owaki and Murayama teaches the tack welds have a depth of fusion of 2 mm, as cited and incorporated above; thus, in combination, Geisler in view of Owaki, Murayama and Rieppel teaches the tack welds have a width of fusion of 1 mm, which falls inside of the claimed range, to satisfy the fusion zone depth to width ratio is of the general range of 2 to 1, as taught by Rieppel)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Murayama, by adding the teaching of the tack welds have the fusion zone depth to width ratio is of the general range of 2 to 1, as taught by Rieppel, in order to provide adequate holding strength for welding unusually narrow joint, as recognized by Rieppel [Rieppel, Col.2 lines 13-17].
Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman, Murayama and Rieppel teaches the method as set forth above, but does not teach:
wherein the finishing welds have a depth of fusion ranging from about 0.25mm to about 3mm and a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm.
Iwasaki teaches a method of laser welding (Iwasaki Pars.0077-0084):
wherein the finishing welds have a depth of fusion ranging from about 0.25mm to about 3mm (Iwasaki Par.0082 teaches: “The fusion depth (d) is preferably 0.2 to 0.4 mm.”) and a width of fusion ranging from about 0.5mm to 4.5mm (Iwasaki Par.0082 teaches: “The width (Wj) of the fusion part is preferably 0.6 to 0.8 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman, Murayama and Rieppel, by adding the teaching of the ranging of the depth of fusion and the ranging of the width of fusion the finishing weld, as taught by Iwasaki, in order to achieve a good joint strength and therefore is useful in applications requiring long-term reliability, as recognized by Iwasaki [Iwasaki, Par.0169].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geisler et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0072601 A1, previously cited) in view of Motomi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0017057 A1, previously cited), Veldsman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0120398 A1, previously cited), Owaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0361033 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Kar et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,632,401 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Geisler discloses a method of laser welding a recliner assembly (Geisler Par.0014 discloses: “A further subject of the present invention is a recliner for adjusting the position of a backrest of a seat, with a recliner center region and adapter plates in which the adaptor plates are respectively joined by at least one laser-welded seam to the recliner center region”; therefore, Geisler discloses a method of laser welding a recliner assembly) comprising:
positioning a first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “FIG. 2 shows a recliner 13 which has a so-called recliner center region 15 which contains a means with which the position of the backrest may be altered relative to the seat surface. Adapters 16, 17 are positively arranged on the recliner, the positive material connection being carried out according to the invention in the present case by laser-welding.”; therefore, the first component can be the adapter 16 or the adapter 17) of a vehicle seat recliner mechanism (recliner 13, Geisler Fig.2) with respect to a second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism (recliner 13, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Claim 3 discloses: “the plurality of parts include positioning means in the region of at least one of the joining surfaces that fix the position of at least two parts of the plurality of parts relative to one another.”, Geisler Par.0009 discloses: “the parts in the region of the joining surfaces comprise means which fix the position of the respective parts relative to one another”, and Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape”; therefore, Geisler discloses positioning the first component of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism with respect to the second component of the vehicle seat recliner mechanism);
retaining a position of the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Par.0028 discloses retaining the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 by clamping one to another, specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another”; therefore, Geisler discloses retaining position of the first component and the second component); and
fixing the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) to the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2), the fixing including forming a finishing weld between the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) by laser welding the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) to the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) (Geisler Pars.0019 & 0028 disclose fixing the recliner center region 15 to the adapter 16 by laser welding, specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “As a result, it is possible that all parts to be joined, i.e. the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another and welded”, Geisler Par.0019 discloses: “a method for positively joining two parts in which a tab, which is arranged on the first part, is bent in the direction of the second part after joining together the two parts and is then laser-welded thereto”);
clamping the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) to a fixture (“fixture”, Geisler Claim 5) before the retaining (it is noted that the retaining step is the step of performing tack welds, as indicated by Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Geisler teaches clamping the first and the second components before any of the welding operation; specifically, Geisler Par.0028 discloses retaining the recliner center region 15 and the adapter 16 by clamping one to another before welding, Geisler Par.0028 discloses: “the recliner center region 15 as well as the adapter 16, may be put into a shape and clamped to one another and welded”, Geisler Par.0009 discloses: “the parts in the region of the joining surfaces comprise means which fix the position of the respective parts relative to one another, so that the parts are able to be put into a clamping device, clamped against one another”, and Geisler Claim 5 discloses: “the positions of the parts are configured to be fixed to one another in a fixture”; therefore, Geisler discloses clamping the first component and the second component to the fixture before the retaining),
wherein the first component (adapter 16 or adapter 17, Geisler Fig.2) and the second component (recliner center region 15, Geisler Fig.2) are selected from the group consisting of: an upper bracket plate (Geisler Fig.2 shows the adapter 16 is upper bracket plate), a lower bracket plate, a recliner heart (Geisler Fig.2 shows the recliner center region 15 includes the recliner heart), an encapsulating ring, a gear plate, a guide plate, a spring bracket, a stop bracket, and any combination thereof [it is noted that the limitation “are selected from the group consisting of: an upper bracket plate, a lower bracket plate, a recliner heart, an encapsulating ring, a gear plate, a guide plate, a spring bracket, a stop bracket, and any combination thereof” is in alternative form]
Geisler does not explicitly disclose:
forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component
unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the plurality of tack welds,
wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture,
wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location,
wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and
wherein the method further comprises:
cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing; and
moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining.
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds, and
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld.
Motomi teaches a welding method (Motomi Figs.1-8):
forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) (Motomi Par.0050 teaches: “The slide plate 13 with the jigs 11-1 through 11-4 loaded thereon is pushed forward, as shown at (5) in FIG. 7, by a slide drive means, where the mutually contacting welding edges of an underbody 3 transported to the side-member tacking station 1, and side-members 4 transported by the first transporter robot 10-3 are clamped in four locations: two locations each, fore and aft. In this clamped state, the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5”; since Motomi teaches the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5, therefore, Motomi teaches forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component),
unclamping the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) are held only by the plurality of tack welds (it is noted that the fixing is the final weld, it is further noted that the primary reference Geisler already discloses clamping the first component and the second component to a fixture before all of the welding steps, as cited and explained above; in this case, Motomi also teaches clamping the first component and the second component to a fixture before the retaining, and Motomi further teaches unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing; specifically, Motomi Par.0048 teaches: “These clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4 clamp fore and aft portions of welding edges on the left and right sides of an underbody 3 to fore and aft portions of the lower welding edges of side-members 4, while at the same time positioning them relative to each other, and to a stationary system that includes the ground.”, and Motomi Par.0050 teaches: “In this clamped state, the underbody 3 and side-members 4 are tack-welded by the welding robots 104 and 10-5, after which the clamps of the clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4 are released and the jigs are retracted slightly, along with the slide plate 13, from the location indicated by the dashed lines in FIG. 7 to the location indicated by the solid lines, where they wait for the next underbody 3 and side-members 4 that are to be tack-welded.”; therefore, Motomi teaches after the tack welds (i.e., the retaining), unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture; moreover, Motomi Par.0002 teaches: “The main members in the body of a vehicle are an underbody, left and right side-members and a roof. These main members are relative-positioned using a variety of positioning jigs, and are tacked in the positioned state by spot-welding using welding robots, after which final welding is performed”; therefore, Motomi teaches welding method for vehicle components, wherein the tack welds are formed before the final weld; additionally, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”, and Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”; therefore, Motomi Figs.1, 5, 8 and Pars.0046, 0050, 0054 teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are clamped, and the side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 at the station 1, then unclamp side-members 4 and the underbody 3 after tack-welding, and the unclamped side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are transported to the station 5, and the final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3 is performed at the station 5; thus, Motomi teaches unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing (i.e., the final weld) such that the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 are held only by the plurality of tack welds),
wherein the fixing is performed with the first (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) being unclamped from the fixture (Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “Next, the roof coarse placement station 5 will be described with reference to FIG. 8. The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3.”, it is further noted that the transporter robot 32 shown in Fig.8 of Motomi is for transporting a roof 31, and robots 33-1 and 33-2 are welding robots, according to Motomi Par.0054; thus, Motomi Figs.1, 5, 8 and Pars.0046, 0050, 0054 teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped after the tack welds; Motomi Fig.8 also shows the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped when the final weld is performed; therefore, Motomi teaches the side-members 4 and the underbody 3 being unclamped from the fixture when the fixing (i.e., the final weld) is performed),
wherein the positioning and the retaining are performed at a first location (station 1, Motomi Fig.5) (it is noted that the positioning and the retaining are the positioning step and the performing tack welds step, as indicated above in Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”; therefore, Motomi teaches the positioning and the retaining are performed at the station 1),
wherein the fixing is performed at a second location (station 5, Motomi Fig.5) (it is noted that the fixing is the final welding step by laser welding, as indicated above in Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”; therefore, Motomi the fixing (i.e., the final weld) is performed at the station 5),
wherein the method further comprises: moving the first component (side members 4, Motomi Fig.1) and the second component (underbody 3, Motomi Fig.1) from the first location (station 1, Motomi Fig.5) to the second location (station 5, Motomi Fig.5) after the retaining (it is noted that the retaining is the performing tack welds step, as indicated by Claim 1 of the Instant Application; in this case, Motomi Par.0046 teaches: “As shown in FIG. 1, provided in the side-member tacking station 1 are a plurality of robots 10-1 through 10-6 and clamping jigs 11-1 through 11-4. Here, side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 that has been positioned in the vehicle body assembly line 2”, and Motomi Par.0054 teaches: “The purpose of this station 5, is to perform coarse placement of a roof 31 by suspending it between the tops of a pair of side-members 4 tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3, and also to perform final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3”, therefore, Motomi Pars.0046 & 0054 teaches side-members 4 are tack-welded to the left and right sides of an underbody 3 at the station 1, and the final welding of the side-members 4 to the underbody 3 is performed at the station 5; thus, Motomi teaches moving the first component and the second component from station 1 to station 5 after the tack welds step)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler, by adding the teachings of forming a plurality of tack welds between the first component and the second component, unclamping the first component and the second component from the fixture before the fixing such that the first component and the second component are held only by the plurality of tack welds, wherein the fixing is performed with the first and second component being unclamped from the fixture, wherein the positioning and retaining are performed at a first location, wherein the fixing is performed at a second location, and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining, as taught by Motomi, in order to ensure proper alignment and fit of the welding pieces before the final welding process and avoid the irregular move of the welding pieces; thus, it helps to prevent distortion, control movement during welding, and maintain the correct joint gap; and therefore, achieving a strong and quality weld. Furthermore, by making the positioning and the retaining are performed at the first location, the fixing is performed at the second location, and moving the first component and the second component from the first location to the second location after the retaining would allow for optimized workflow, reduce downtime, ensuring high-quality results. The modification would also help to optimize operation time in a case where parts need to be adjusted or realigned after tack welding but before the final weld, the final weld station can be used for other tasks while the tack-welded parts are being worked on. Thus, improving the overall efficiency.
Geisler in view of Motomi does not teach wherein the method further comprises:
cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing;
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds, and
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld.
Veldsman teaches a method of laser welding (Veldsman Fig.5) comprising:
cooling (cooling by the coolant nozzle 20, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0056) a region (heated weld zone 52, Veldsman Fig.5) including at least a portion of the finishing weld (the heated weld zone 52 includes at least a portion of the finishing weld) by directing a fluid (Veldsman Par.0057 teaches: “The coolant nozzle 20 is arranged to eject the pressurised stream of carbon dioxide at a high, preferably supersonic, velocity”) at the region (heated weld zone 52, Veldsman Fig.5), the cooling (cooling by the coolant nozzle 20, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0056) being performed concurrently with the fixing (it is noted that the fixing is the process of performing the finishing weld by laser; in this case, Veldsman Fig.5 & Par.0054-0057 teaches the cooling being performed concurrently with the laser welding, Veldsman Par.0054 teaches: “FIG. 5 shows the welding apparatus 10 being used to simultaneously weld and cool a work 50”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, by adding the teaching of cooling a region including at least a portion of the finishing weld by directing a fluid at the region, the cooling being performed concurrently with the fixing, as taught by Veldsman, in order to simultaneously weld and cool a workpiece for preventing weld distortion, maintaining the integrity of the weld joint, and ensuring the overall quality and strength of the finished product.
Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman does not explicitly teach:
wherein the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds, and
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld.
Owaki teaches a method of laser welding (Owaki Fig.1B or Fig.5):
wherein the plurality of tack welds (the plurality of tack welds at joint portion 3, Owaki Fig.1B or Fig.5) includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds (Owaki Fig.5 shows substantially equally spaced apart tack welds formed between the first joint 1 and the second joint 2) or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds (it is noted that the limitation “substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds” are in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination; it is further noted that the term “substantially” herein is defined in Instant Application in Par.0094 of the Specification and also shown in the Drawings Figs.12-13 of the Instant Application, see plurality of tack welds 310b and 310c in Figs.12-13 of the Instant Application; therefore, the limitation “substantially equally spaced apart tack welds or substantially unequally spaced apart tack welds” as recited herein is understandable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi and Veldsman, by adding the teaching of the plurality of tack welds includes substantially equally spaced apart tack welds, as taught by Owaki, in order to enhance the holding forces between workpieces before the final weld; thus, ensuring joint stability, and creating a high-quality final weld because uneven spacing can cause inconsistent stress as the metal heats and cools, leading to warping, misalignment, and potential weld defects.
Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Owaki does not teach:
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld
Kar teaches a method of laser welding (Kar Abstract & Col.5 lines 63-68):
wherein the forming the plurality of tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld (Kar Col.5 lines 63-68 teaches: “the tack welds may be placed, using a power level of about 1000 watts (each of the tack welds having a dwell time of about 0.1 seconds). After the tack welds are completed, the power level of the laser is set up to about 1250 watts and interface 70 is circumferentially welded”; therefore, Kar teaches the tack welds use less power than the finishing weld).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Geisler in view of Motomi, Veldsman and Owaki, by adding the teaching of the forming the tack welds uses a lower power than forming the finishing weld, as taught by Kar, in order to reduce heat input, minimizing the risk of distortion or warping because tack welds serve as temporary joints to hold materials in place during the final welding process; thus, tack welds are designed to be easily removable and do not need to create a strong, permanent bond.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sakkinen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0169107 A1) discloses a seat frame for use in a vehicle having a first seat frame member and a second seat frame member. At least one of the first seat frame member and the second seat frame member has an adhesive positioned thereon, wherein the adhesive is curable by heat generated by a diffused laser beam from a laser welder.
Gueguen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,097,831 B2) discloses a method for welding two metal parts, in which the metal parts are positioned against each other in a welding position, the parts being respectively in surface contact along their welding surfaces, and TIG welding is carried out on the welding surfaces of the metal parts by means of a TIG welding torch.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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 CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/12/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights