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
The claims filed 5 February 2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract have overcome the Specification objection. The Specification objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103, filed 5 February 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 5 February 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: no claims were amended.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are pending.
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 the following:
“clamping device” of claims 1 and 9.
Functional limitations attributed to the clamping device are “closing the clamping device” (claims 1 and 9).
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitations of claims 1 and 9 are “clamping jaws” (paragraph 0016 of the Specification). Claims 8 and 18 have sufficient structure such that interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for these claims.
“welding machine” of claim 4
The functional limitation attributed to the welding machine is “setting the first weld seam and the connecting weld seam.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “laser” (paragraph 0012 of the Specification). Claim 19 has sufficient structure such that interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for this claim.
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.
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, 3-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2011156572-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Takeuchi et al. (JP-2000326080-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Bocksrocker (US-20240082954-A1, effective filing date of 28 May 2021, cited in 892 form filed 17 Jan 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Oda teaches a method for a connection (“laser welding method for lap welding,” para 0001) of first (plate 36, fig. 9) and second plate-shaped components (plates 12 and 14, fig. 9) the method comprising the steps of:
placing (“stacked,” para 0051) the first component (plate 36, fig. 9) on a surface of a clamping device (surface of lower pressing portion 18b, fig. 9),
placing (“stacked,” para 0051) the second component (plates 12 and 14, fig. 9) on the first component (plate 36, fig. 9),
closing the clamping device (“clamped by the clamping jig,” para 0051),
setting (“irradiated with the first laser light L1,” para 0052) a first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 10) on the second component (plates 12 and 14, fig. 10; para 0052), wherein a welding depth is selected that is less than a material thickness of the second component (thickness is “1.2 mm” and “.5 mm,” para 0023; construed as a thickness of 1.7 mm; the depth of molten pool 28 is less than the depth of plates 12 and 14, fig. 10), with the result that a bend (bend in plate 14, fig. 10) having a bend apex (“a substantially V-shaped cross section,” para 0052; the bottom of the “V-shape” in the deformed plate 14 is construed as the claimed apex, fig. 10) is formed along and aligned with the first weld seam (the bottom of the bent plate 14 aligns with molten pool 28, fig. 10) owing to a welding distortion (“deformed,” para 0052), wherein the bend apex of the second component comes into linear contact with the first component (plate 14 is in contact with plate 36, fig. 10; construed as being a “linear contact” because plate 14 has a “V-shaped cross section,” para 0052), and
setting (“irradiated with two second laser beams L2,” para 0054) a connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11), with the result that the two components are welded to one another along the bend (molten pools 44 are along the bent plate 14, fig. 11).
Oda, figs. 9-11
PNG
media_image1.png
586
1334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
566
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment (figs. 9-11), Oda does not explicitly disclose a method for a media-tight connection of first and second plate-shaped components; the second component being a monopolar plate formed from a single metal sheet, the clamping device directly contacting the second component; setting a connecting weld seam on the first weld seam.
However, in a different embodiment (figs. 3-6), Oda teaches setting a connecting weld seam (molten pool 34, fig. 5) on the first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 5).
Oda, figs. 5-6
PNG
media_image3.png
552
1336
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the figs. 9-11 embodiment of Oda to include, setting a connecting weld seam on the first weld seam, in view of the teachings of the figs. 5-6 embodiment of Oda, by using a follow-on molten pool 34, as taught by Oda in fig. 6, after the two narrow weld seems 44 have been cooled and solidified, as taught by Oda in fig. 11, in order to use a wider weld seam 34 that better secures all of the plates 12, 14, and 36 together, for the advantage of adding a final weld seam that firmly connects all of the plates together after the metal vapor has been removed from the weld pool (paras 0055-0056 teach the removal of metal vapor, which corresponds with fig. 11).
Oda does not explicitly disclose a method for a media-tight connection of first and second plate-shaped components; the second component being a monopolar plate formed from a single metal sheet, the clamping device directly contacting the second component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Takeuchi teaches the clamping device (chucks 21 and 22 and stationary member 20, fig. 2; para 0011) directly contacting the second component (chuck 21 directly contacts plate material 10, which is construed as the claimed “second component”).
Takeuchi, fig. 2
PNG
media_image4.png
424
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Takeuchi, by welding two plates together and using chucks that control the top plate, as taught by Takeuchi, where instead of three plates 12, 14, and 36 being welded together, only two plates 14 are 36 are welded together, as taught by Oda, in order to control the size of the gap that forms between the two plates, such that the gap range is between a lower an upper limit, for the advantage of keeping the gap between its limits ensuring that the proper rate of gas evacuation occurs during welding and because during automotive manufacturing, it is a matter of simple substitution to weld two plates together instead of three plates (Takeuchi, paras 0002 and 0020; as evidenced by fig. 2 of Takeuchi, a change of operation of using two plates instead of three plates will not change the method of welding taught by Oda in figs. 9-11).
Oda/Takeuchi do not explicitly disclose a method for a media-tight connection of first and second plate-shaped components; the second component being a monopolar plate formed from a single metal sheet.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bocksrocker teaches a method for a media-tight connection (“fluid-tight connection,” para 0019) of first and second plate-shaped components (parts 12 and 14, figs. 2-3); the second component being a monopolar plate (part 12 is a plate used to form bipolar plate 10, figs. 2-3; part 12 is construed as being a “monopolar plate”) formed from a single metal sheet (“stainless, austenitic high-grade steel,” para 0050; para 0046; construed such that plate 12 is formed from a stainless steel plate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda/Takeuchi, in view of the teachings of Bocksrocker, by using stainless steel parts to form a bipolar plate, as taught by Bocksrocker, using the method for welding, as taught by Oda, where the second seam width is wider than the first seam width, as taught by Bocksrocker in figs. 2-3 and by Oda in figs. 5-6, in order to form welds that are fluid-tight, for the advantage of forming fuel cells that can be used to direct gases or water through their defined paths within fuel cells (Bocksrocker, paras 0003-0004).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Oda in view of Takeuchi and Bocksrocker as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Bocksrocker teaches wherein a metal sheet (“stainless, austenitic high-grade steel,” para 0050) having a sheet metal thickness or material thickness of from 50 to 100 μm is used for each of the two components (“thickness of the two plate parts 12, 14 may be for example 75 μm,” para 0050).
Regarding claim 4, Oda teaches wherein a welding machine (“laser,” para 0019; para 0029) is used for setting the first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 10) and the connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11; “same,” para 0031).
Regarding claim 5, Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a laser beam is moved over the second component at a rate of at least 0.5 m/s when setting the first weld seam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bocksrocker teaches wherein a laser beam (beam 24, fig. 2) is moved over the second component (plate part 12, fig. 2) at a rate of at least 0.5 m/s (“100 mm/s,” para 0021) when setting the first weld seam (first weld seam 16, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Bocksrocker, by using a feed rate of at least 100 mm/s, as taught by Bocksrocker, when forming the molten pool 28, as taught by Oda, in order to use a high feed rate that increases the cost effectiveness of the production process (Bocksrocker, para 0021).
Regarding claim 7, Oda teaches wherein, before the connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11; paras 0054-0055; step S13, fig. 8), the second component is secured on the first component (fig. 9; para 0051; step S11, fig. 8; step S11 happens before step S13, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Oda teaches wherein the clamping device (jig 16, fig. 7) includes clamping jaws (pressing portions 18a and 18b, fig. 7), wherein the clamping device is configured for a local spring-loading of the two components (plates 12, 14, and 36, fig. 10; similar to what is described in the Instant Application, plate 14 is construed as being “spring loaded” between plates 12 and 36 as a result of the “V-shaped” bend, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Oda teaches a method for a connection (“laser welding method for lap welding,” para 0001) of first (plate 36, fig. 9) and second plates (plates 12 and 14, fig. 9), the method comprising the steps of:
placing (“stacked,” para 0051) the first component (plate 36, fig. 9) on a surface of a clamping device (surface of lower pressing portion 18b, fig. 9),
placing (“stacked,” para 0051) the second component (plates 12 and 14, fig. 9) on the first component (plate 36, fig. 9),
closing the clamping device (“clamped by the clamping jig,” para 0051),
setting (“irradiated with the first laser light L1,” para 0052) a first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 10) on the second component (plates 12 and 14, fig. 10; para 0052), wherein a welding depth is selected that is less than a material thickness of the second component (thickness is “1.2 mm” and “.5 mm,” para 0023; construed as a thickness of 1.7 mm; the depth of molten pool 28 is less than the depth of plates 12 and 14, fig. 10), with the result that a bend (bend in plate 14, fig. 10) having a bend apex (“a substantially V-shaped cross section,” para 0052; the bottom of the “V-shape” in the deformed plate 14 is construed as the claimed apex, fig. 10) is formed along and aligned with the first weld seam (the bottom of the bent plate 14 aligns with molten pool 28, fig. 10) owing to a welding distortion (“deformed,” para 0052), wherein the bend apex of the second component comes into linear contact with the first component (plate 14 is in contact with plate 36, fig. 10; construed as being a “linear contact” because plate 14 has a “V-shaped cross section,” para 0052), and
setting (“irradiated with two second laser beams L2,” para 0054) a connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11), with the result that the two components are welded to one another along the bend (molten pools 44 are along the bent plate 14, fig. 11).
In this embodiment (figs. 9-11), Oda does not explicitly disclose a method for the media-tight connection of first and second monopolar plates for the production of a bipolar plate; setting a connecting weld seam on the first weld seam.
However, in a different embodiment (figs. 3-6), Oda teaches setting a connecting weld seam (molten pool 34, fig. 5) on the first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the figs. 9-11 embodiment of Oda to include, setting a connecting weld seam on the first weld seam, in view of the teachings of the figs. 5-6 embodiment of Oda, by using a follow-on molten pool 34, as taught by Oda in fig. 6, after the two narrow weld seems 44 have been cooled and solidified, as taught by Oda in fig. 11, in order to use a wider weld seam 34 that better secures all of the plates 12, 14, and 36 together, for the advantage of adding a final weld seam that firmly connects all of the plates together after the metal vapor has been removed from the weld pool (paras 0055-0056 teach the removal of metal vapor, which corresponds with fig. 11).
Oda does not explicitly disclose a method for a media-tight connection of first and second monopolar plate-shaped components for the production of a bipolar plate; the second component formed from a single metal sheet, the clamping device directly contacting the second component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Takeuchi teaches the clamping device (chucks 21 and 22 and stationary member 20, fig. 2; para 0011) directly contacting the second component (chuck 21 directly contacts plate material 10, which is construed as the claimed “second component”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Takeuchi, by welding two plates together and using chucks that control the top plate, as taught by Takeuchi, where instead of three plates 12, 14, and 36 being welded together, only two plates 14 are 36 are welded together, as taught by Oda, in order to control the size of the gap that forms between the two plates, such that the gap range is between a lower an upper limit, for the advantage of keeping the gap between its limits ensuring that the proper rate of gas evacuation occurs during welding and because during automotive manufacturing, it is a matter of simple substitution to weld two plates together instead of three plates (Takeuchi, paras 0002 and 0020; as evidenced by fig. 2 of Takeuchi, a change of operation of using two plates instead of three plates will not change the method of welding taught by Oda in figs. 9-11).
Oda/Takeuchi do not explicitly disclose a method for a media-tight connection of first and second monopolar plate-shaped components; the second component formed from a single metal sheet.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bocksrocker teaches a method for the media-tight connection (“fluid-tight connection,” para 0019) of first and second monopolar plate-shaped components (parts 12 and 14, figs. 2-3, the parts are used to form bipolar plate 10, figs. 2-3; parts 12 and 14 are construed as being “monopolar plates”); the second component formed from a single metal sheet (“stainless, austenitic high-grade steel,” para 0050; para 0046; construed such that plate 12 is formed from a stainless steel plate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda/Takeuchi, in view of the teachings of Bocksrocker, by using stainless steel parts to form a bipolar plate, as taught by Bocksrocker, using the method for welding, as taught by Oda, where the second seam width is wider than the first seam width, as taught by Bocksrocker in figs. 2-3 and by Oda in figs. 5-6, in order to form welds that are fluid-tight, for the advantage of forming fuel cells that can be used to direct gases or water through their defined paths within fuel cells (Bocksrocker, paras 0003-0004).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Oda in view of Takeuchi and Bocksrocker as set forth above regarding claim 9 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Bocksrocker teaches wherein a metal sheet (“stainless, austenitic high-grade steel,” para 0050) having a sheet metal thickness or material thickness of from 50 to 100 μm is used for each of the two components (“thickness of the two plate parts 12, 14 may be for example 75 μm,” para 0050).
Regarding claim 13, Oda teaches wherein a laser welding machine (“laser,” para 0019; para 0029) is used for setting the first weld seam (molten pool 28, fig. 10) and the connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11; “same,” para 0031).
Regarding claim 14, Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a laser beam is moved over the second component at a rate of at least 0.5 m/s when setting the first weld seam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Bocksrocker teaches wherein a laser beam (beam 24, fig. 2) is moved over the second component (plate part 12, fig. 2) at a rate of at least 0.5 m/s (“100 mm/s,” para 0021) when setting the first weld seam (first weld seam 16, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Bocksrocker, by using a feed rate of at least 100 mm/s, as taught by Bocksrocker, when forming the molten pool 28, as taught by Oda, in order to use a high feed rate that increases the cost effectiveness of the production process (Bocksrocker, para 0021).
Regarding claim 16, Oda teaches wherein, before the connecting weld seam (molten pools 44, fig. 11; paras 0054-0055; step S13, fig. 8), the second component is secured on the first component (fig. 9; para 0051; step S11, fig. 8; step S11 happens before step S13, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Oda teaches wherein the clamping device (jig 16, fig. 7) includes clamping jaws (pressing portions 18a and 18b, fig. 7), wherein the clamping device is configured for a local spring-loading of the two components (plates 12, 14, and 36, fig. 10; similar to what is described in the Instant Application, plate 14 is construed as being “spring loaded” between plates 12 and 36 as a result of the “V-shaped” bend, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, Oda teaches wherein the welding machine is a laser welding machine (“laser,” para 0019; para 0029).
Claims 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2011156572-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Takeuchi et al. (JP-2000326080-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Bocksrocker (US-20240082954-A1, effective filing date of 28 May 2021) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Hemmers et al. (DE-102019212923-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 2, Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a welding depth of 20 to 80% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding workpieces, Hemmers teaches wherein a welding depth of 20 to 80% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam (weld 5 of top metal layer 1, fig. 1; “limitation of the thickness of the metal layers ( 1 ) can be specified as 10 mm each,” para 0024; “the heat for increasing the distance between the metal layers of the material composite is introduced parallel to the connecting edge at a distance… at least 1.0 mm … to a maximum of 8 mm,” para 0012; construed as a depth range relative to the thickness of 1/20 to 8/20 or 5% to 40%).
Hemmers, figs. 1-2
PNG
media_image5.png
456
586
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
536
882
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Hemmers, by using a depth of 5% to 40%, as taught by Hemmers, for the ratio between the depth of the molten pool 28 relative to the combined thickness of the plates 12 and 14, as taught by Oda in fig. 10, in order to bring about a targeted plastic deformation of the plates in an optimized manner so as to prevent the gap from becoming too large resulting in an inadequate material connection in the butt joint, or instead causing the gap to be too small such the gap is inadequate for ensuring a sufficient amount of degassing of the polymer layer (Hemmers, paras 0007 and 0012).
Regarding claim 10, Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a welding depth of 30 to 70% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding workpieces, Hemmers teaches wherein a welding depth of 30 to 70% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam (weld 5 of top metal layer 1, fig. 1; “limitation of the thickness of the metal layers ( 1 ) can be specified as 10 mm each,” para 0024; “the heat for increasing the distance between the metal layers of the material composite is introduced parallel to the connecting edge at a distance… at least 1.0 mm … to a maximum of 8 mm,” para 0012; construed as a depth range relative to the thickness of 1/20 to 8/20 or 5% to 40%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Hemmers, by using a depth of 5% to 40%, as taught by Hemmers, for the ratio between the depth of the molten pool 28 relative to the combined thickness of the plates 12 and 14, as taught by Oda in fig. 10, in order to bring about a targeted plastic deformation of the workpiece in an optimized manner so as to prevent the gap from becoming too large resulting in an inadequate material connection in the butt joint, or instead causing the gap to be too small such the gap is inadequate for ensuring a sufficient amount of degassing of the polymer layer (Hemmers, paras 0007 and 0012).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the depth of molten pool 28 of Oda in fig. 10 would be modified to a depth of 5% to 40% relative to the thickness of the plates, as taught by Hemmers, as this is a routine optimization in the art. Though Oda is silent as to the actual depth of the molten pool 28, Hemmers simply serves to demonstrate that such a depth would have been optimized in a routine manner in the invention of Oda 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 11, Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a welding depth of 40 to 60% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding workpieces, Hemmers teaches wherein a welding depth of 40 to 60% of the material thickness of the second component is selected when setting the first weld seam (weld 5 of top metal layer 1, fig. 1; “limitation of the thickness of the metal layers ( 1 ) can be specified as 10 mm each,” para 0024; “the heat for increasing the distance between the metal layers of the material composite is introduced parallel to the connecting edge at a distance… at least 1.0 mm … to a maximum of 8 mm,” para 0012; construed as a depth range relative to the thickness of 1/10 to 8/10 or 10% to 80%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda, in view of the teachings of Hemmers, where a weld pool formed on plate 14 such that the ratio between the depth of the molten pool on plate 14 relative to the thickness of plate 14, as taught by Oda in fig. 10, by using a depth ratio of 10% to 80%, as taught by Hemmers, in order to bring about a targeted plastic deformation of the workpiece in an optimized manner so as to prevent the gap from becoming too large resulting in an inadequate material connection in the butt joint, or instead causing the gap to be too small such the gap is inadequate for ensuring a sufficient amount of degassing of the polymer layer (Hemmers, paras 0007 and 0012).
PHOSITA would have naturally expected that the molten pool 28 of Oda in fig. 10 could be extended to plate 14 with a depth of 10% to 80% relative to the thickness of the plate, as taught by Hemmers, as this is a routine optimization in the art. Though Oda is silent as to whether molten material forms in plate 14, Hemmers simply serves to demonstrate that such a depth would have been optimized in a routine manner in the invention of Oda 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 (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda et al. (JP-2011156572-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Takeuchi et al. (JP-2000326080-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) and Bocksrocker (US-20240082954-A1, effective filing date of 28 May 2021) as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Pfiz et al. (US-20060096957-A1).
Oda teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein, before the connecting weld seam is set, the second component is secured on the first component by means of tacking.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding workpieces, Pfiz teaches wherein, before the connecting weld seam (line seam 20, fig. 22) is set, the second component is secured on the first component by means (interpreted under 35 USC 112f from the Specification as a laser welding machine, paras 0012 and 0015; Pfiz teaches employing a “laser weld robot,” para 0063) of tacking (tack seams 28 and 29, fig. 21; “First, with a laser beam 5, a clamping or holding seam or two short clamping seams or tack seams 28, 29 are produced…then the final weld seam 20 can be produced,” para 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Oda to include, wherein, before the connecting weld seam is set, the second component is secured on the first component by means of tacking, in view of the teachings of Pfiz, by using tack seams that facilitate removing the clamping system, as taught by Pfiz, for the jig 16, as taught by Oda, so that the sheets remain fixed to each other at the location of the tack seams, which locally freezes the joint gap and permits a final weld seam to be produced that is unobstructed by the clamping system (Pfiz, paras 0051-0052).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103
Independent Claim 1
Page 9 of the arguments states that the examiner is ignoring figs. 5-6 of Oda (JP-2011156572-A) in the rejection above, which is based on a combination of Oda and Takeuchi (JP-2000326080-A). In the rejection above, the examiner relied on Takeuchi to explain why it would obvious to remove plate 12 and to weld plates 14 and 36 together instead of plates 12, 14, and 36 together:
PNG
media_image7.png
260
431
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The Applicant reasons that if the top plate 12 is removed, then plate 14 will not bend. Rather, the bottom plate 36 will bend instead.
PNG
media_image8.png
260
524
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The justification for this reason is figs. 5-6 of Oda, which shows that when two plates are welded, then the bottom plate will bend:
PNG
media_image9.png
240
490
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, the Applicant concludes that the examiner is ignoring figs. 5-6 of Oda and is not considering the Oda reference in its entirety.
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because Oda teaches that the thickness of the plate is actually what determines whether or not a plate will bend. Specifically, Oda teaches that the temperature difference between the top surface of the plate and the bottom surface of the plate causes deformation (paragraphs 0012 and 0027). This temperature difference is based on the rigidity of the plate, which is determined from the plate’s thickness (paragraph 0023). Thus, in fig. 5, the reason why plate 14 bends is not because plate 14 is below plate 12 (as argued by the Applicant). Instead, plate 14 bends because plate 14 is thinner than plate 12. As a result, in fig. 10, if plate 12 is removed, then respectfully submit that plate 14 will still bend and plate 36 will not bend, because plate 14 is thinner than plate 36:
PNG
media_image10.png
260
559
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Page 10 of the arguments states that replacing Oda’s pressing member 18 with Takeuchi’s chucks 21 and 22 in order to control the size of the gap that forms would have been a redundant advantage because Oda already teaches using the pressing device 18 to control the size of the gap. The Applicant also alleges that the examiner is using impermissible hindsight in forming this combination.
However, the rejection above makes no mention of substituting the chucks 21 and 22 with the pressing device 18. Instead, the only modification that is required in Oda is to use two plates instead of three plates. The limitation that needs to be satisfied is: “the clamping device directly contacting the second component.” If the top plate 12 in fig. 10 was removed, then plate 14 would be in contact with the pressing device 18.
Furthermore, respectfully submit that this hindsight argument is conclusory. The examiner considered the Applicant’s Specification to see if there was any teaching regarding the use of the clamping device to control the size of a gap, but the examiner could not find any mention of this feature. The only reference that mentions this advantage is Takeuchi. Thus, there is no evidence to support the “impermissible hindsight” argument.
The above rejection combining Oda with Takeuchi states that it would be a matter of simple substitution to weld two plates together instead of three plates. The bottom of page 10 refutes this statement by stating that it is conclusory. The examiner disagrees. Instead, respectfully submit that paragraphs 0002 and 0020 and fig. 2 of Takeuchi were cited as evidence to show that “a change of operation of using two plates instead of three plates will not change the method of welding taught by Oda in figs. 9-11” (page 10 of the Office action filed 20 November 2025).
Page 11 states that if plate 12 was removed, then the laser light would pass through plate 14. The examiner disagrees with this statement. Plate 14 is a metal plate and is not a transparent material such as glass. As a result, the laser light would not be capable of passing through plate 14. This can be seen in fig. 10 of Oda, where the top plate 12 absorbs the laser beam, causing a molten pool to form. The heat from this molten pool travels through plate 12, resulting in the deformation/bending of plate 14.
Page 11 states that “nothing in Takeuchi discloses that groove 14 is formed by the laser 19.” The examiner disagrees. Instead, Takeuchi teaches in fig. 1 that using a laser to form a groove 14 such that the “groove 14 has an arc-shaped cross section and a shallow depth, and a curved surface 15 that changes gradually on the convex side formed by the groove is formed” (paragraph 0009). In fig. 1, Takeuchi teaches controlling the gaps on both sizes of the groove 14, which result as a result of the deformation caused by the laser.
Independent Claim 9
These arguments reference the arguments for claim 1, which have already been addressed by the examiner.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/2/2026