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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Yasuoka does not disclose using the single mode as expressly required in claims 1 and 23. Yasuoka repeatedly describe laser device configured to output multi-mode laser light and does not disclose the claimed use of a single-mode laser light shaped into a plurality of beams.
The Office disagrees. Yasuoka discloses optical elements that splits the laser light input into a plurality of beams (par. 38), where the laser light input comes from the laser device 110 (par. 35) which can be a multi-mode laser light or single mode light (par. 106).
Applicants argue that Yasuoka does not disclose minimum distance between centers of adjacent beams is 5 um or more and 75 um or less. Applicants argue that Yasuoka does not disclose that the distance between centers of the plurality of beams most distant in a direction orthogonal to the sweep direction is 300 um or less. Applicants state that Yasuoka discloses a center to center distance on the order of 75 um to 400 um and a ring diameter of 300 um – 800 um, none of which satisfy the claimed bounds.
The Office agrees. Yasuoka discloses a center to center distance range which includes 75 um, which lies in the range 5 um to 75 um. Yasuoka discloses a ring diameter of 300 um which lies within the claimed range of 300 um or less.
Applicants argue that Yasuoka does not disclose sub-beams with a diameter less than 25 um.
The Office agrees. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yasuoka (US 20210031301 A1) in view of Dallarosa (US 20170021455 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-13 15-16 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuoka (US 20210031301 A1) in view of Dallarosa (US 20170021455 A1).
Claim 1. Yasuoka discloses a welding method (welding, title) comprising:
irradiating a surface (surface of a workpiece W, Fig. 1) of a workpiece (workpiece W, Fig. 1) with a laser light (laser device 110, Fig. 1) that moves relatively to the workpiece in a sweep direction (the laser sweeps over the workpiece, par. 46); and
performing welding by melting a part of the workpiece irradiated with the laser light (portion of the workpiece is melted, par. 46),
wherein the laser light includes a plurality of beams (plurality of sub beams, par. 59), the plurality of beams include at least one main beam and at least one sub beam smaller in power than the main beam (main beam and a plurality of sub beam wherein the main beam has a higher power than the sub beams, par. 59),
a main power region including the at least one main beam (main beam B1 region, Fig. 3B) and a sub power region (sub-beam B2 region, Fig. 3B) including the at least one sub beam are formed on the surface (the sub-beam B2 is formed on the surface, Fig. 3B),
the laser light is a single mode laser light (single-mode light may be used, par. 106),
on the surface, a distance between centers of the plurality of beams most distant in a direction orthogonal to the sweep direction is 300 um or less (radius R between the main beam and sub beams can be between 150 um and 400 um, par. 56, wherein the radius R is orthogonal to the sweep direction, Fig. 3A), and
a minimum distance between centers of adjacent ones of the plurality of beams on the surface is 5 um or more and 75 um or less (distance between the main beam and sub-beam can be 75 um, par. 58).
Yasuoka does not disclose sub-beams with a diameter of 25 um or less.
Dallarosa discloses a laser welding method wherein the laser beam is split into a plurality of beams (par. 58) and the sub-laser beams have a diameter of 10 to 500 um (claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasuoka to incorporate the teachings of Dallarosa and have the sub-beams have a diameter of 10 to 500 um. Dallarosa demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the size of the sub-beam diameters based on design specifications and application.
Claim 5. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a power of the main power region and a power of the sub power region falls within a range of 72:1 to 1:50 (ratio of power between the main beam and sub beams is 9:1 to 3:7, par. 43).
Claim 6. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sub beam is arranged ahead of the at least one main beam in the sweep direction (see Fig. 3A).
Claim 7. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sub beam is arranged behind the at least one main beam in the sweep direction (see Fig. 3A).
Claim 8. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sub beam is arranged with respect to the at least one main beam with a shift in a direction intersecting with the sweep direction (see Fig. 3A, where a sub-beam is in a direction that intersects with the sweep direction).
Claim 9. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein, as the at least one sub beam, a plurality of sub beams are arranged around the at least one main beam (plurality of sub beams surrounding the main beam, Fig. 3A).
Claim 10. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of sub beams are arranged in a circular arc pattern (sub beams are arranged in a circular pattern, Fig. 3A).
Claim 11. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 9, wherein the plurality of sub beams are arranged in a quadrangular pattern (see Fig. 8A).
Claim 12. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein the main power region and the sub power region are arranged such that a molten pool formed by the at least one main beam contained in the main power region and a molten pool formed by the at least one sub beam contained in the sub power region partially overlap each other (main beam and sub beams may overlap, par. 102, where it is understood that if the beams overlap that the melt pools generated by said beams will also overlap).
Claim 13. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a wavelength of a laser light of the at least one main beam contained in the main power region and a wavelength of a laser light of the at least one sub beam contained in the sub power region are equal to each other (Fig. 1, the same laser device is used to generate both the main beam and sub beam, where it is understood that the wavelength does not change when the beam is split).
Claim 15. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a laser light of the at least one main beam contained in the main power region and a laser light of the at least one sub beam contained in the sub power region are emitted from a common oscillator (laser device 110, Fig. 1).
Claim 16. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a laser light of the at least one main beam contained in the main power region and a laser light of the at least one sub beam contained in the sub power region are emitted from different laser oscillators (two laser devices 611 and 612, Fig. 13).
Claim 19. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein arrangement of the plurality of beams is formed by a beam shaper (beam splitting is performed by a beam shaper, claim 7).
Claim 20. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 19, wherein the beam shaper is a diffractive optical element (claim 8).
Claim 21. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein the workpiece includes at least two members superposed on each other (claim 6).
Claim 22. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a diameter of the main beam is equal to a diameter of the sub beam (main beam B1 has the same diameter as the sub beams B2, Fig. 3A).
Claim 23. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa discloses a welding apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a laser oscillator (110, Fig. 1); and
an optical head (optical head 120, Fig. 1) configured to irradiate a surface of a workpiece with a laser light including a plurality of beams obtained by shaping the laser light of the single mode emitted from the laser oscillator (the laser sweeps over the surface workpiece with a plurality of beams, par. 46, Fig. 3A; wherein the laser light is single mode, par. 106), and
perform welding by melting a part of the workpiece irradiated with the laser light (portion of the workpiece is melted, par. 46),
wherein the welding apparatus is configured to:
perform relative displacement between the workpiece and at least part of the optical head to move the laser light relatively to the workpiece in a sweep direction (the laser sweeps over the workpiece, par. 46);
cause the plurality of beams to include at least one main beam and at least one sub beam smaller in power than the main beam (main beam and a plurality of sub beam wherein the main beam has a higher power than the sub beams, par. 59);
form a main power region including the at least one main beam and a sub power region including the at least one sub beam on the surface (Fig. 3A);
set a distance between centers of the plurality of beams most distant in a direction orthogonal to the sweep direction is 300 um or less on the surface (radius R between the main beam and sub beams can be between 150 um and 400 um, par. 56, wherein the radius R is orthogonal to the sweep direction, Fig. 3A); and
set a minimum distance between centers of adjacent ones of the plurality of beams on the surface to be 75 pm or less (distance between the main beam and sub-beam can be 75 um, par. 58).
Yasuoka does not disclose sub-beams with a diameter of 25 um or less.
Dallarosa discloses a laser welding method wherein the laser beam is split into a plurality of beams (par. 58) and the sub-laser beams have a diameter of 10 to 500 um (claim 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasuoka to incorporate the teachings of Dallarosa and have the sub-beams have a diameter of 10 to 500 um. Dallarosa demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine the size of the sub-beam diameters based on design specifications and application.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuoka ‘001 (US 20190389001 A1).
Claim 14. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa does not disclose the welding method according to claim 1, wherein a wavelength of a laser light of the at least one sub beam contained in the sub power region is a wavelength that has a higher absorption rate for the workpiece as compared with a wavelength of a laser light of the at least one main beam contained in the main power region.
Yasuoka ‘001 discloses a welding method wherein there are two laser oscillators (Fig. 8) wherein the lasers can irradiate beams with different wavelengths (par. 120) and the auxiliary beams are operating at a wavelength wherein the reflectivity of the workpiece is reduced (par. 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa to incorporate the teachings of Yasuoka ‘001 and have the sub beams operate at a wavelength that has a higher absorption rate for the workpiece. Doing so would have the benefit of efficiently forming the molten pool (par. 124, Yasuoka ‘001).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woods (US 20130146569 A1).
Claim 17. Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa does not disclose the welding method according to claim 1, wherein M2 beam quality of the laser light is 1.3 or less.
Woods discloses a laser processing system wherein the beam quality can change based on the workpiece thickness or a characteristic of the processing operation (par. 24-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yasuoka in view of Dallarosa to incorporate the teachings of Woods and alter the beam quality. Woods demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of altering the beam quality based on the workpiece thickness and characteristic of the processing operation (par. 24-25, Woods).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights