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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 18, 20 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 18, 20 recite the term “and/or”. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, “and/or” is understood to be “or.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 8-9, 13, and 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " fixing distance being smaller than the height.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the height” is the previously referred “height of the welding bump” or a different “height.” For purposes of examination, “the height” is taken to be the same as “a height of the welding bump.”
Regarding claims 4, 8, 9, 16, and 17 the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance of at least 0.3 mm from the center of the welding bump”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.5-0.8 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the limitation is read to be “wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance of at least 0.3 mm from the center of the welding bump.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 8 and 16 recite the broad recitation “a height of the welding bump is 5-50 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 10-30 μm, more preferably 15-25 μm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the limitation is taken to read as “a height of the welding bump is 5-50 μm.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 9 and 17 recite the broad recitation “a width of the welding bump is 0.2-2 mm”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.3-1.5 mm, more preferably 0.4-1 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the limitation is taken to read as “a width of the welding bump is 0.2-2 mm.”
Claim 13 recites the limitation “during the step of fixing.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as there are no steps recited in the claims of which claim 13 depends upon. For purposes of examination, the limitation is understood to be an equivalent of “when the first metal plate and the second metal plate were fixed…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US10850354) in view of Akutsu (JP2010129289) and further in view of Gaugler (CN101997122A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
732
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 4A and 4B of Fujiwara
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara teaches A method for positioning a first metal plate and a second metal plate relative to each other in a laser beam welding position, wherein:
the first metal plate (10) comprises a first plate welding zone (12) and a first surface (10b), having a first structure (flat portion of 10b),
the second metal plate (11) comprises a second plate welding zone (11, under protrusion 12) and a second surface (11a), and wherein the second metal plate (11) comprises no welding bump (Fig. 4A), having a second structure (flat portion of 11a),
the first structure and the second structure (flat portions of 10a and 11a) are adapted to form a flow field channel pattern (13) when the first metal plate and the second metal plate are joined together (Col. 7 lines 15-45 zinc vapor 13 is generated in gap H between upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 when upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 are welded),
the first plate (10) welding zone comprises a welding bump (12),
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
arranging the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) in a laser beam welding position (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation), such that:
the first structure (flat portion of 10b) and the second structure (flat portion of 11a) are positioned to form the flow field channel pattern (Col. 7 lines 15-45 zinc vapor 13 is generated in gap H between upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 when upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 are welded), and
the welding bump (12) of the first metal plate (10) is projecting towards the second plate (11) welding zone of the second metal plate (11 Figs. 4A and 4B),
fixing the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) in the laser beam welding position (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation).
Fujiwara is silent on having a first channel structure, having a second channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure, and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure, using at least one welding fixture, wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate next to the first plate welding zone and/or the second metal plate next to the second plate welding zone, and/or reducing a pressure of air between the first metal plate and the second metal plate, thereby providing a suction force.
Akutsu teaches at least one welding fixture (110 having upper and lower portions 120, 130), wherein the at least one welding fixture (120 and 130) engages the first metal plate (11) next to the first plate welding zone (15) and/or the second metal plate (12) next to the second plate welding zone (15), and/or reducing a pressure of air between the first metal plate (11) and the second metal plate (12), thereby providing a suction force ([0019] 151, 152).
Fujiwara and Akutsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teaching of Akutsu to have a welding fixture that engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate that a holding portion may hold a welding portion that allows for suppression in variation of a welding protrusion of the welded portion and allow accurate cooling of the welding portion by forming the fixture based on the flow field (Akutsu [0004-0006]).
Fujiwara and Akutsu are silent on the first metal plate having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure, and the second metal plate having a second channel structure and having a second opposite channel structure.
Gaugler teaches the first metal plate (3) having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d), and the second metal plate (2) having a second channel structure and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1d of Gaugler
Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Akutsu to incorporate the teaching of Gaugler to have the first metal plate have a first channel structure, a first opposite surface which has a first opposite channel structure, and the second metal plate have a second channel structure and a second opposite surface which has a second opposite channel structure in order to increases the flow field in the horizontal direction greater than in the vertical direction to control the exact direction of the flow field (Gaugler [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, but Fujiwara and Gaugler is silent on wherein the at least one welding fixture engages next to the first welding zone and/or the second welding zone.
Akutsu teaches wherein the at least one welding fixture (110, having 120 and 130 and ring 192) engages next to the first welding zone and/or the second welding zone (15, [0040] where jig 120 has portion 192 supporting portions of plate 11 next to zone 15).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Gaugler to incorporate the teachings of Akutsu to have a welding fixture that engages next to the first welding zone so that the welded portion may be supported in such a way that suppresses the variation in penetration depth dimensions of the welded portion (Akutsu [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, but Fujiwara and Akutsu are silent on wherein the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate comprise at least one positioning feature, which at least one positioning feature is adapted to position the first metal plate and the second metal plate in a laser beam welding position.
Gaugler teaches wherein at least one positioning feature ([0040] conical embossing) comprised by the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate ([0040] conical embossing formed on plate layers) is used for positioning the first metal plate and the second metal plate during the step wherein the first metal plate and the second metal plate are arranged in the laser beam welding position ([0040] for positioning of plates relative to one another).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Akutsu to incorporate the teachings of Gaugler to have a positioning feature on the metal plates so that precise positioning may be achieved before welding occurs (Gaugler [0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, and Fujiwara teaches further comprising the step of joining the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) by laser beam welding (9), wherein a laser beam (9) is focused at the welding bump (12, Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, and Fujiwara teaches wherein the welding bump has an elongated shape and a length (12, Fig. 4a and 4B where 12 is elongated in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 8, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, and Fujiwara teaches wherein a height of the welding bump is 0.1mm (Col. 6 lines 15-30).
Regarding the limitation “wherein a height of the welding bump is 5-50 μm, preferably 10-30 μm, more preferably 15-25 μm ” as required by claim 8,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the welding bump of Fujiwara from 0.1 mm to 5-50 μm since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 9, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, and Fujiwara teaches a width of the welding bump is 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm (Col. 8 lines 1-13).
Regarding the limitation “wherein a width of the welding bump is 0.2-2 mm, preferably 0.3-1.5 mm, more preferably 0.4-1 mm” as required by claim 9,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the welding bump of Fujiwara from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm to 0.2-2 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”(MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 10, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, but Fujiwara and Gaugler are silent on wherein the method further comprises a step of making at least one welding fixture based on dimensions of the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate, and/or on the flow field channel pattern, and/or on the location of the welding bump on the first metal plate/
Akutsu teaches wherein the method further comprises a step of making at least one welding fixture based on dimensions of the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate, and/or on the flow field channel pattern, and/or on the location of the welding bump on the first metal plate ([0020] jig 110, made of upper and lower jigs 120 and 130, are fastened together, taken ot be a form of making the fixutre 110, such that a gap is formed such that flow of air, being a flow field channel pattern, is maintained).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Gaugler to incorporate the teachings of Akutsu to make a fixture based on dimension of a flow field so that a holding portion may hold a welding portion that allows for suppression in variation of a welding protrusion of the welded portion and allow accurate cooling of the welding portion by forming the fixture based on the flow field (Akutsu [0004-0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, but Fujiwara and Akutsu are silent on wherein the method further comprises a step of designing the plates, wherein dimensions of the welding bump are determined based on tolerances of dimensions of the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate, and/or on dimensions of the laser beam to be focused on the welding bump during the laser beam welding.
Gaugler teaches wherein the method further comprises a step of designing the plates, wherein dimensions of the welding bump are determined based on tolerances of dimensions of the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate, and/or on dimensions of the laser beam to be focused on the welding bump during the laser beam welding ([0029] plates formed based on shape tolerances of the metal plates)
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Akutsu to incorporate the teachings of Gaugler to form the welding bump and plate based on a shape tolerance of the metal plates so that the related channel structures, recesses, and protrusions can be predictable and reproducible within the structures (Gaugler [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Fujiwara teaches a method for connecting a first metal plate and a second metal plate to each other, wherein:
the first metal plate (10) comprises a first plate welding zone (12) and a first surface (10b), having a first structure (flat portion of 10b),
the second metal plate (11) comprises a second plate welding zone (11, under protrusion 12) and a second surface (11a), having a second structure (flat portion of 11a),
and wherein second plate welding zone (11, portion of plate 11 under bump 12) is formed by the part of the second metal plate (11) that is to be connected to the first plate welding zone (12) of the first plate (10),
the first and the second structure (flat portions of 10a and 11a) are adapted to form a flow field channel pattern (13) when the first metal plate and the second metal plate are joined together (Col. 7 lines 15-45 zinc vapor 13 is generated in gap H between upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 when upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 are welded), and
the first plate (10) welding zone comprises a welding bump (12) and the second plate welding zone (11) does not comprise a welding bump (Figs. 4a and 4b),
wherein the method comprises the following steps:
arranging the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) in a laser beam welding position (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation), such that:
the first structure (flat portion of 10b), and the second structure (flat portion of 11a) are positioned to form the flow field channel pattern (Col. 7 lines 15-45 zinc vapor 13 is generated in gap H between upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 when upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 are welded), and
the welding bump (12) of the first metal plate (10) is projecting towards the second plate (11) welding zone of the second metal plate (11 Figs. 4A and 4B),
fixing the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) in the laser beam welding position (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation) by:
connecting the first plate welding zone (12) and the second plate welding zone (11, area on plate 11 under bump 12) to each other by welding (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation).
Fujiwara is silent on the first metal plate having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure and the second metal plate having a second channel structure and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure, using at least one welding fixture, wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate next to the first plate welding zone and/or the second metal plate next to the second plate welding zone, and/or reducing a pressure of air between the first metal plate and the second metal plate, thereby providing a suction force.
Akutsu teaches using at least one welding fixture (110 having upper and lower portions 120, 130), wherein the at least one welding fixture (120 and 130) engages the first metal plate (11) next to the first plate welding zone (15) and/or the second metal plate (12) next to the second plate welding zone (15), and/or reducing a pressure of air between the first metal plate (11)and the second metal plate (12), thereby providing a suction force ([0019] 151, 152).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Akutsu to have a first and second opposite channel structure and a welding fixture that engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate that a holding portion may hold a welding portion that allows for suppression in variation of a welding protrusion of the welded portion and allow accurate cooling of the welding portion by forming the fixture based on the flow field (Akutsu [0004-0006]).
Fujiwara and Akutsu are silent on the first metal plate having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure and the second metal plate having a second channel structure and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure.
Gaugler teaches the first metal plate (3) having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d), and the second metal plate (2) having a second channel structure and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1d of Gaugler
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teaching of Gaugler to have the first metal plate have a first channel structure, a first opposite surface which has a first opposite channel structure, and the second metal plate have a second channel structure and a second opposite surface which has a second opposite channel structure in order to increases the flow field in the horizontal direction greater than in the vertical direction to control the exact direction of the flow field (Gaugler [0065]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US10850354), Akutsu (JP2010129289), and Gaugler (CN101997122A) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Shibata (US11462748).
Regarding claim 2, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, and Fujiwara teaches wherein the welding bump (12) has a curved shape having a radius of curvature (Fig. 4A), and wherein an outer point of the welding bump (12) is position out of plane of the first metal plate (10) by a height of the welding bump (H),
wherein during the step of fixing the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) the welding bump (12) is partially flattened (Figs. 4A and 4B), such that said first metal plate (10) and second metal plate (11) are positioned on a fixing distance of each other (H).
Fujiwara is silent on said fixing distance being smaller than the height.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Shibata
Shibata teaches said fixing distance being smaller than the height (Fig. 6 Col. 7 lines 1-15, Col. 11 line 45-Col. 12 line 20 the distance between plates 23b and 24b at flat portions 17, 18 of plate 24b is in contact with flat portions 37, 28 of 23b, which is smaller than the height of bump 10a; Annotated Fig. 4).
Fujiwara, Akutsu, Gaugler and Shibata are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler to incorporate the teachings of Shibata to have the fixing distance being smaller than the height of the welding bump so that an increased force may be applied to the welded sections which increases the strength between the first and second plates (Shibata Col. 12 lines 20-35).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US10850354), Akutsu (JP2010129289), and Gaugler (CN101997122A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duavel (US20080217307).
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler teach the method according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance of at least 0.3 mm, preferably 0.5-0.8 mm from the center of the welding bump.
PNG
media_image4.png
288
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Dauvel
Dauvel teaches wherein the at least one welding fixture (4) engages the first metal plate (2) and the second metal plate (1) at a distance from the center of the welding bump (Fig. 4 [0041-0042] distance D and L/2 being a distance between clamping means 4 and center of protrusion 3).
Dauvel discloses (pp. [0041-0042]) that the distance that the welding fixture, being a gripping means 4, engages the first and second metal plates 1 and 2, needs to be optimized in order to obtain a desired gap between the two sheets in relation to a welding bump or protrusion, as the gap between the two sheets need to be a specified height such that they are a sufficient size to receive or discharge gases formed by vaporization of layers of the metal sheets that occur during welding in a manner to which the quality of the weld is not degraded (Dauvel [0016]). As seen in Fig. 4 and [0016], the distances D and L/2, which in combination are the distance from the center of the protrusion 3 and the gripping means 4, is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the gripping means 4 and the center of the protrusion affects the gap between the two metal sheets being welded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Fujiwara, Akutsu, in view of Gaugler, with the teachings of Dauvel, to have the at least one welding fixture engage the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance from the center of the welding bump as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (MPEP 2144.05).
Fujiwara, Akutsu, Gaugler and Dauvel are silent on the limitation of wherein the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance of at least 0.3 mm, preferably 0.5-0.8 mm from the center of the welding bump.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance that at least one welding fixture engage the first metal plate and the second metal plate as taught by Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler in view of Dauvel to be at least 0.3 mm, preferably 0.5-0.8 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” (MPEP 2144.05 I.)
Fujiwara, Akutsu, Gaugler and Dauvel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding. It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara, Akutsu, and Gaugler to incorporate the teachings of Dauvel to have the at least one welding fixture engages the first metal plate and the second metal plate at a distance from the center of the welding bump such that first and second metal plates are secured at a position optimized to receive or discharge gases formed by vaporization of layers of the metal sheets that occur during welding in a manner to which the quality of the weld is not degraded (Dauvel [0016]).
Claims 12, 14-18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US10850354) in view of Gaugler (CN101997122A) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 12, Fujiwara teaches a first metal plate (10) and a second metal plate (11) being associated with the first metal plate (10) adapted to be joined together by laser beam welding (Fig. 4A, illustrates helical laser irradiation), wherein:
the first metal plate (10) comprises a first plate welding zone (12) and a first surface (10b), having a first channel structure (flat portion of 10b),
the second metal plate (11) comprises a second plate welding zone (11, under protrusion 12) and a second surface (11a), having a second channel structure (flat portion of 11a), and wherein the second metal plate (11) comprises no welding bump (Fig. 4A)
the first channel structure and the second channel structure (flat portions of 10a and 11a) are adapted to form a flow field channel pattern (13) when the first metal plate and the second metal plate are joined together (Col. 7 lines 15-45 zinc vapor 13 is generated in gap H between upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 when upper plate 10 and lower plate 11 are welded),
the first plate (10) welding zone comprises a welding bump 12),
wherein the welding bump (12) is adapted to project towards the second plate welding zone (11, welded area of plate 11) of the second metal plate (11) during a welding process wherein a laser beam is focused at the welding bump (Figs. 4A and 4B).
Fujiwara is silent on and a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure, and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure.
Gaugler teaches the first metal plate (3) having first channel structure, a first opposite surface, having a first opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d), and the second metal plate (2) having a second channel structure and a second opposite surface, having a second opposite channel structure (Annotated Fig. 1d).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1d of Gaugler
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teaching of Gaugler to have the first metal plate have a first channel structure, a first opposite surface which has a first opposite channel structure, and the second metal plate have a second channel structure and a second opposite surface which has a second opposite channel structure in order to increases the flow field in the horizontal direction greater than in the vertical direction to control the exact direction of the flow field (Gaugler [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, but Fujiwara is silent on wherein the first metal plate and the second metal plate are formed by hydroforming.
Gaugler teaches wherein the first metal plate and the second metal plate are formed by hydroforming ([0024] hydroforming).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Gaugler to form the plates by hydroforming as hydroforming is known to contribute to producing high quality plates for use in welded multilayer plates (Gaugler [0009]).
Regarding claim 15, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, and Fujiwara teaches wherein the welding bump has an elongated shape and a length (12, Fig. 4a and 4B where 12 is elongated in a longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 16, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, and Fujiwara teaches wherein a height of the welding bump is 0.1mm (Col. 6 lines 15-30).
Fujiwara and Gaugler are silent on “wherein a height of the welding bump is 5-50 μm, preferably 10-30 μm, more preferably 15-25 μm” as required by claim 16,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the welding bump of Fujiwara from 0.1 mm to 5-50 μm since it has been held that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close." (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 17, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, and Fujiwara teaches a width of the welding bump is 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm (Col. 8 lines 1-13).
Fujiwara and Gaugler are silent on “wherein a width of the welding bump is 0.2-2 mm, preferably 0.3-1.5 mm, more preferably 0.4-1 mm” as required by claim 17,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the welding bump of Fujiwara from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm to 0.2-2 mm since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”(MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claim 18, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, but Fujiwara is silent on wherein the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate comprise at least one positioning feature, which at least one positioning feature is adapted to position the first metal plate and the second metal plate in a laser beam welding position.
Gaugler teaches wherein at least one positioning feature ([0040] conical embossing) comprised by the first metal plate and/or the second metal plate ([0040] conical embossing formed on plate layers) is used for positioning the first metal plate and the second metal plate during the step wherein the first metal plate and the second metal plate are arranged in the laser beam welding position ([0040] for positioning of plates relative to one another).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara to incorporate the teachings of Gaugler to have a positioning feature on the metal plates so that precise positioning may be achieved before welding occurs (Gaugler [0040]).
Regarding claim 19, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach the first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, and Fujiwara teaches further comprising the step of joining the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) by laser beam welding (9), wherein a laser beam (9) is focused at the welding bump (12, Fig. 4A).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (US10850354) and Gaugler (CN101997122A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Shibata (US11462748).
Regarding claim 13, Fujiwara and Gaugler teach first metal plate and a second metal plate being associated with the first metal plate according to claim 12, and Fujiwara teaches wherein the welding bump (12) has a curved shape having a radius of curvature (Fig. 4A), and wherein an outer point of the welding bump (12) is position out of plane of the first metal plate (10) by a height of the welding bump (H),
wherein during the step of fixing the first metal plate (10) and the second metal plate (11) the welding bump (12) is partially flattened (Figs. 4A and 4B), such that said first metal plate (10) and second metal plate (11) are positioned on a fixing distance of each other (H).
Fujiwara and Gaugler are silent on said fixing distance being smaller than the height.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Shibata
Shibata teaches said fixing distance being smaller than the height (Fig. 6 Col. 7 lines 1-15, Col. 11 line 45-Col. 12 line 20 the distance between plates 23b and 24b at flat portions 17, 18 of plate 24b is in contact with flat portions 37, 28 of 23b, which is smaller than the height of bump 10a; Annotated Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to have modified Fujiwara and Gaugler to incorporate the teachings of Shibata to have the fixing distance being smaller than the height of the welding bump so that an increased force may be applied to the welded sections which increases the strength between the first and second plates (Shibata Col. 12 lines 20-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/6/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761