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 amendment filed 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objection. The Claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection. The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 18 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 18 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claim 9 is new.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 are 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 1 recites: “a power density of the first laser light being 125,000 W/cm2 or more and 5,100.000 W/cm2 or less, and a power density of the second laser light being 6,250,000 W/cm2 or more and 200,000,000 W/cm2 or less.” It is unclear if the claimed power density values are being claimed as ranges or as combinations of alternatives (“…or…and…or…”). For example, if the values are combinations of alternatives, then a plausible interpretation for one of the alternatives is: “a power density of the first laser light being 125,000 W/cm2 and 5,100.000 W/cm2, and a power density of the second laser light being 6,250,000 W/cm2 and 200,000,000 W/cm2.” It is unclear how the power densities can be both “125,000 W/cm2 and 5,100.000 W/cm2” as well as “6,250,000 W/cm2 and 200,000,000 W/cm2.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as ranges, i.e., “a power density of the first laser light being between 125,000 W/cm2 2 between 6,250,000 W/cm2 2
Claim 9 has the same problem as claim 1 where it is unclear if a range is being claimed or a combination of alternatives is being claimed. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a range, i.e., “a temperature between
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 1. These new rejections have been added based on the amended portion of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US-20230110940-A1, effective filing date of 13 March 2020) in view of Dinkelman (US-20160193694-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a laser welding method (title) for welding a material (object W, fig. 1) containing copper (“copper plate surface,” para 0075) as a main component (para 0055), the laser welding method comprising:
heating the material by irradiation with a first laser light (beam from laser device 112, fig. 1; para 0043; beam B2, fig. 2; “second laser light,” para 0053) and welding the material (weld part 14, fig. 1) by irradiation of a portion (surface area of beam B1, fig. 2; para 0053), which has been irradiated with the first laser light (surface area of beam B2, fig. 2; para 0053), of the material with a second laser light (beam from laser device 111, fig. 1; para 0042; beam B1, fig. 2; “first laser light,” para 0053) with which an energy absorption rate (fig. 3) of the copper contained in the material increases due to an increase in a temperature of the material (“welding,” para 0074; construed as increasing the temperature of the material; “an absorption rate of energy becomes higher by using blue or green laser light (second laser light),” para 0057; construed such that the second laser light causes the copper material to experience a higher temperature and a higher absorption rate),
a wavelength of the first laser light being 400 nm to 470 nm (“wavelength of the second laser light was 450 nm,” para 0074),
a power density of the first laser light (“the power density Pd2 of the second laser light,” para 0075) being between 125,000 W/cm2 and 5,100.000 W/cm2 (“equal to or larger than 0.16 [MW/cm2] and equal to or smaller than 1.5 [MW/cm2],” para 0075; construed as a range between 160,000 W/cm2 and 1,500,000 W/cm2).
Matsumoto, figs. 1-2
PNG
media_image1.png
897
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a power density of the second laser light being between 6,250,000 W/cm2 and 200,000,000 W/cm2 (Tanaka teaches a range for the first laser light beam between 210,000,000 W/cm2 and 240,000,000 W/cm2, fig. 6)
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Dinkelman teaches a power density of the second laser light being between 6,250,000 W/cm2 and 200,000,000 W/cm2 (“a power density of between… 5 and 18 MW/cm2,” para 0033; construed as an overlapping range between 5,000,000 W/cm2 and 18,000,000 W/cm2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Dinkelman, by using a power density between 5 and 18 MW/cm2, as taught by Dinkelman, instead of between 210 and 240 MW/cm2 for the first laser light beam, as taught by Matsumoto, because copper is a highly reflective material requiring a relatively high power and a relatively small spot size, but depending on the thickness of the component, a power density between 5 and 18 MW/cm2 can be an appropriate power density to enable a strong laser weld (Dinkelman, paras 0032-0033; Matsumoto teaches that the depth or thickness of a weld affects the strength of the weld, para 0072) 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 3, Matsumoto teaches wherein a wavelength of the second laser light is 1030 nm to 1200 nm (“1070 nm,” para 0074).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto teaches wherein a light source (laser device 111, fig. 1; para 0042) of the second laser light is an infrared laser (“1070 nm,” para 0074; emitting a wavelength with 1070 nm, which is in the infrared spectrum, is construed as causing device 111 to be an “infrared laser;” para 0057).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US-20230110940-A1, effective filing date of 13 March 2020) in view of Dinkelman (US-20160193694-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Finuf et al. (US-20180236605-A1).
Matsumoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a light source of the first laser light is a diode laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Finuf teaches wherein a light source of the first laser light (“450 nm,” para 0053; “composite beam,” para 0081) is a diode laser (laser diode subassemblies 210, 210a, 210c, and 210d, fig. 19).
Finuf, fig. 19
PNG
media_image3.png
938
880
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 invention of Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Finuf, by using laser diode subassemblies, as taught by Finuf, for the laser device 112, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to use four laser diode assemblies with an increased intensity, combining multiple beams into a composite beam at a low cost, to function as a blue laser with a wavelength of 450 nm, enabling an efficient coupling of the beam to the absorption of the copper (Finuf, paras 0053, 0081, and 0085).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US-20230110940-A1, effective filing date of 13 March 2020) in view of Dinkelman (US-20160193694-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kumazawa et al. (JP-2012110905-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Matsumoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a number of portions irradiated with the second laser light is two or more for one portion irradiated with the first laser light.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Kumazawa teaches wherein a number of portions irradiated with the second laser light (beams 201b and 201c, fig. 8A) is two or more (beam portions 201b and 201c, fig. 6B) for one portion (portion 201a, fig. 6B) irradiated with the first laser light (beam 201a, fig. 8A).
Kumazawa, fig. 6B and 8A
PNG
media_image4.png
412
640
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
242
318
media_image5.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 Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Kumazawa, by using two beam portions 201b and 201cm as taught by Kumazawa, instead of one beam portion B1, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to multiple beams with high power densities, which prevents spatter, cracks, and blowholes from forming around or in the weld (Kumazawa, paras 0049 and 0149; Matsumoto teaches that beam portion B1 should have a higher density than beam portion B2, fig. 6).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US-20230110940-A1, effective filing date of 13 March 2020) in view of Dinkelman (US-20160193694-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US-20180036836-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Matsumoto teaches a pair of first (beam B2, fig. 2) and second laser lights (beam B1, fig. 2).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the material is irradiated with two or more pairs.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Nakamura teaches wherein the material (flat wires 20a and 20b, figs. 12-14; “copper,” para 041) is irradiated with two or more pairs (para 0069; splitting the beams B1 and B2 taught by Matsumoto is construed as being two pairs of beams B1 and B2).
Nakamura, fig. 14
PNG
media_image6.png
490
656
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 Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Nakamura, by splitting, as taught by Nakamura, the beams B1 and B2, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to apply the beams using elliptical trajectories at the same time, for the advantage of forming a weld between two wires where the beams do not irradiate the inside wire side surfaces, which has an adverse effect on the insulating film between the wires (paras 0006-0007 and 0076).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the laser welding method of claim 1 (please see rejection above).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose a method for manufacturing an electric rotating machine, in which a plurality of conductor segments are respectively inserted into a plurality of slots formed at a stator core and end portions of the plurality of conductor segments inserted into the slots are made of the material containing copper as the main component, the method for manufacturing the electric rotating machine comprising: welding the end portions of the plurality of conductor segments using the laser welding method.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Nakamura teaches a method for manufacturing an electric rotating machine (stator 1, fig. 1), in which a plurality of conductor segments (segment coils 20, fig. 1) are respectively inserted into a plurality of slots (slots 12, fig. 1; para 0040) formed at a stator core (stator core 10, fig. 1) and end portions (flat wires 20 and 20b, fig. 12) of the plurality of conductor segments inserted into the slots are made of the material containing copper as the main component (para 0041), the method for manufacturing the electric rotating machine comprising: welding the end portions of the plurality of conductor segments using the laser welding method (laser beam application trajectories, fig. 12; para 0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Nakamura, by splitting, as taught by Nakamura, the beams B1 and B2, as taught by Matsumoto, which are used to weld together flat wires of a coil in a stator core, as taught by Nakamura, in order to use a laser welding method for flat wires, where the ends of the segment coils are joined together by welding, which allows the wires to conduct electrical current, enabling a magnetic field that causes the motor to function (Nakamura, para 0003).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches a pair of first (beam B2, fig. 2) and second laser lights (beam B1, fig. 2).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the end portions (flat wires 20a and 20b, figs. 12-14) of the plurality of conductor segments is irradiated with one or more pairs.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Nakamura teaches wherein each of the end portions of the plurality of conductor segments is irradiated with one or more pairs (para 0069; splitting the beams B1 and B2 taught by Matsumoto is construed as being two pairs of beams B1 and B2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Nakamura, by splitting, as taught by Nakamura, the beams B1 and B2, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to apply the beams using elliptical trajectories at the same time, for the advantage of forming a weld between two wires where the beams do not irradiate the inside wire side surfaces, which has an adverse effect on the insulating film between the wires (paras 0006-0007 and 0076).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. (US-20230110940-A1, effective filing date of 13 March 2020) in view of Dinkelman (US-20160193694-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (US-20130171467-A1).
Matsumoto teaches wherein a portion irradiated with the second laser light (portion for beam B1, fig. 2) is included in the portion irradiated with the first laser light (portion for beam B2, fig. 2).
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the material irradiated with the first laser light is heated to a temperature between 200°C and 1083°C.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding copper materials, Nishikawa teaches the material irradiated with the first laser light (light 35, fig. 1B) is heated to a temperature between 200°C and 1083°C (“melting temperature of copper is 1,083° C,” para 0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matsumoto, in view of the teachings of Nishikawa, by heating the copper material that is processed by beam B1, as taught by Matsumoto, to a temperature of 1,083° C, as taught by Nishikawa, because the melting temperature of copper is 1,083° C, and in order to create a weld in the copper material, the copper material needs to be heated to a temperature such that a keyhole forms as a result of melting the material (Matsumoto, fig. 4, paras 0061 and 0064-0065)
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Matsumoto combined with Tanaka.
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 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 at 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 3/9/2026