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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 16 March 2026. Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s amendments making claim 8 dependent on claim 1 has caused the inventions of claims 1 and 8 to no longer be distinct. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn. All claims were examined in the present Office action.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “…is disclosed.” Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. Recommend deleting “is disclosed” from the first sentence of the abstract.
The amendment filed 19 January 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/EP2021/069611 and of the German patent application 102020119091.3 is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 14 July 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 19 January 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph 0003, recommend amending the paragraph to disclose: “concentrated.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, recommend amending the claim to recite: “wherein the step of applying the laser beam further comprises ta step of aligning the laser beam parallel to the contact plane.”
In claims 3-4, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the laser beam.”
In claim 5, recommend amending the claim to recite “the laser” and identifying what the abbreviation “MSG” stands for.
In claim 6, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the first component” and “the second component.”
In claim 8, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the first component comprising the non-sintered material: and the second component comprising the sintered material, and wherein the composite body is manufactured by the laser welding according to claim 1.”
In claim 9, recommend amending the claim to recite: “wherein the first component is
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of” in claims 1 and 4-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 3 and 15 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.
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 3 recites the broad recitation “wherein the angle α is at least one of at most 45 °,” and the claim also recites “wherein the angle α is at least one of … at most 30°, and at most 15°,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Additionally, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “a carbon content between at least one of 0.3 and 0.9 percent,” and the claim also recites “a carbon content between at least one of ... 0.5 and 0.8 percent, and 0.6 percent,” 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 the purpose of the examination, the claims will be interpreted under their broadest ranges, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawamoto et al. (JP-H0284287-A, cited in 892 form filed 28 Jan 2026; referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Kawamoto teaches a laser welding method (“perform welding in a short time using a high-energy density welding method that uses a high-energy density laser beam,” page 2) for joining a non-sintered material (solid material 5, fig. 2) to a sintered material (sintered material 4, fig. 2), the method comprising the steps of:
providing (fig. 2a) a first component comprising a non-sintered material (solid material 5, fig. 2a),
providing (fig. 2a) a second component comprising a sintered material (sintered material 4, fig. 2a),
arranging (fig. 2a) the first component and the second component along a contact plane (plane in a depth direction on the top surface of the materials 4 and 5, fig. 2a) such that a joining joint (welded portion 13, fig. 2d) is produced,
applying a laser beam (beam 6, fig. 2b) to a first joining region (molten part 10, fig. 2b) of the first component (solid material 5, fig. 2b) in a region of the joining joint (region of welded portion 13, fig. 2d) so as to melt the first joining region to a melt (“the solid material 5 first melts,” page 5),
melting a second joining region (melted part 11, fig. 2c) of the second component (sintered material 4, fig. 2c) in the region of the joining joint by means of the melt of the first joining region (“The bubbles 12 are heated relatively slowly by heat conduction from the molten part 10 of the solid material 5, rise in the molten part 11, and are released to the outside,” page 5), and
cooling the joining joint (welded portion 13 solidifies after being melted, fig. 2d; construed as cooling).
Kawamoto, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
682
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Kawamoto teaches a composite body, comprising: a first component comprising a non-sintered material (solid material 5, fig. 2a) and a second component comprising a sintered material (sintered material 4, fig. 2a), and wherein the composite body is manufactured by a laser welding (fig. 1; laser beam 6, figs. 1-2) according to claim 1 (claim 8 is a product-by-process claim; the process by which the composite body is made does not provide any patentability to the composite body, MPEP 2113; Applicant’s Specification does not indicate that method steps of claim 1 produce a final product that is unique or unexpected).
Regarding claim 13, Kawamoto teaches wherein the sintered material (sintered material 4, fig. 2a) is at least one of a sintered metal (“welding metal materials,” page 4) and a sintered steel (not explicitly disclosed).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto et al. (JP-H0284287-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Nishino et al. (JP-2001353587-A, , referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of applying a laser beam further comprises the step of aligning the step of applying a laser beam further comprises the step of aligning the laser beam parallel to the contact plane.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nishino teaches wherein the step of applying a laser beam (fig. 4b) further comprises the step of aligning the step of applying a laser beam further comprises the step of aligning the laser beam (beam B, fig. 4B) parallel to the contact plane (plane on top of the workpieces Sb and Sa, fig. 4b; para 0006).
Nishino, fig. 4b
PNG
media_image2.png
192
184
media_image2.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 Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Nishino, by tilting the beam, as taught by Nishino, such that the beam was parallel to the fitting surface 8, as taught by Kawamoto, and where the sintered material 4 was a gear with a high carbon composition and the solid material 5 was a shaft with a low carbon composition, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use a gear whose outer circumference contained high-carbon material, which is commonly used in automatic transmissions, and where the beam was off-centered onto the low-carbon material, in order to keep the melting ration of low carbon-steel to high-carbon steel to above 80%, which is necessary in order to avoid the occurrence of cracks in the weld due to the migration of carbon from the high-carbon steel into the molten material (Nishino, paras 0002-0003 and 0007; para 0007 teaches that the “loss of weld strength” described in para 0006 can be overcome by keeping the ratio above 80%).
Regarding claim 3, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of applying a laser beam further comprises the step of aligning the laser beam at an angle α to the contact plane, wherein the angle α is at least one of at most 45°.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nishino teaches wherein the step of applying a laser beam (fig. 3b) further comprises the step of aligning the laser beam at an angle α to the contact plane, wherein the angle α is at least one of at most 45° (“range of 2° < θ < 10°,” para 0011).
Nishino, fig. 3b
PNG
media_image3.png
152
168
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 Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Nishino, by tilting the beam to angle between 2 and 10 degrees, as taught by Nishino, relative to the fitting surface 8, as taught by Kawamoto, and where the sintered material 4 was a gear with a high carbon composition and the solid material 5 was a shaft with a low carbon composition, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use a gear whose outer circumference contained high-carbon material, which is commonly used in automatic transmissions, and where the beam was angled, off-centered onto the low-carbon material, in order to keep the melting ration of low carbon-steel to high-carbon steel to above 80%, which is necessary in order to avoid the occurrence of cracks in the weld due to the migration of carbon from the high-carbon steel into the molten material (Nishino, paras 0002-0003 and 0007).
Regarding claim 6, Kawamoto teaches wherein: the step of providing (fig. 2a) of the first component further comprises the step of providing the first component (solid material 5, fig. 2a), and
the step of providing the second component further comprises the step of providing the second component by means of a second component made of a sintered material (sintered material 4, fig. 2a).
Kawamoto does not explicitly disclose a first component made of steel; a second component made of carbon-containing steel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nishino teaches first component made of steel (low-carbon steel Sa, fig. 3b); a second component made of carbon-containing steel (high-carbon steel Sb, fig. 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Nishino, where the sintered material 4 was a gear with a high-carbon steel composition and the solid material 5 was a shaft with a low-carbon steel composition, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use a gear whose outer circumference contained high-carbon material that is joined to a hub member of low-carbon steel, which is commonly used in automatic transmissions (Nishino, para 0002).
Regarding claim 14, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-sintered material is at least one of a metal and a steel with a carbon content of at most 0.2%.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nishino teaches wherein the non-sintered material is at least one of a metal and a steel with a carbon content of at most 0.2% (“low-carbon steel Sa had a carbon content of 0.1%.,” para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Nishino, where the sintered material 4 was a gear with a high-carbon steel composition and the solid material 5 was a shaft with a low-carbon steel composition, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use a gear whose outer circumference contained high-carbon material that is joined to a hub member of low-carbon steel, which is commonly used in automatic transmissions (Nishino, para 0002).
Regarding claim 15, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sintered metal comprises a carbon content between at least one of 0.3 and 0.9 percent.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Nishino teaches wherein the sintered metal comprises a carbon content between at least one of 0.3 and 0.9 percent (“surface carbon content of 0.7%,” para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Nishino, where the sintered material 4 was a gear with a high-carbon steel composition and the solid material 5 was a shaft with a low-carbon steel composition, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use a gear whose outer circumference contained high-carbon material that is joined to a hub member of low-carbon steel, which is commonly used in automatic transmissions (Nishino, para 0002).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto et al. (JP-H0284287-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sanchez et al. (EP-1577049-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of applying a laser beam further comprises the steps of applying the laser beam by means of a continuous or a pulsed laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Sanchez teaches wherein the step of applying a laser beam (para 0011) further comprises the steps of applying the laser beam by means of a continuous (“continuous mode,” para 0016) or a pulsed laser beam (there can alternatively be “pulsation,” para 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Sanchez, by using a high-carbon content, as taught by on the sintered material gear 4, as taught by Kawamoto, and where the beam taught by Kawamoto, operated in either a continuous mode with argon gas or in a pulsed mode, as taught by Sanchez, in order to use a high-carbon content that improved the wear resistance of the gear, and where the beam can be operated in either a continuous mode with an auxiliary gas, such that weld spatter is suppressed, or in a pulsation mode, where ultrasonic vibration can improve the mechanical properties of the welded joint (Sanchez, paras 0005, 0014, and 0016).
Regarding claim 5, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of applying a laser further comprises the step of applying the laser by means of laser beam MSG hybrid welding.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Sanchez teaches wherein the step of applying a laser (para 0011) further comprises the step of applying the laser by means of laser beam MSG hybrid welding (“addition of Ar as the auxiliary gas,” para 0016; combining a laser beam with the use of argon gas is construed as “laser beam MSG hybrid welding”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Sanchez, by using a high-carbon content, as taught by on the sintered material gear 4, as taught by Kawamoto, and where the beam taught by Kawamoto, operated a continuous mode with argon gas, as taught by Sanchez, in order to use a high-carbon content that improved the wear resistance of the gear, and where the beam can be operated in a continuous mode with an auxiliary gas, such that weld spatter is suppressed (Sanchez, paras 0005, 0014, and 0016).
Claims 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto et al. (JP-H0284287-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Lichtenwald et al. (US-20060278187-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kawamoto teaches the step of applying the laser beam (fig. 2b) further comprises the step of applying the laser beam by directing the laser beam from radially outside (beam 6 is directed from the left, fig. 2b; the left direction of fig. 1 as being a radial outside direction) onto the first joining region (molten part 10, fig. 2b) and guiding the laser beam on a circular path parallel to the contact plane and around at least one of the components (“This solid material 5 is chucked in a rotating jig (not shown) and rotates at a constant speed,” page 3; construed such that beam rotates on a circular path on the top surface of the material 5 as a result of the rotation).
Kawamoto does not explicitly disclose wherein: the step of providing the first component further comprises the step of providing the first component by means of a circular disc-shaped component, and.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Lichtenwald teaches wherein: the step of providing the first component (driving wheel 3, fig. 3) further comprises the step of providing the first component by means of a circular disc-shaped component (a wheel is construed as having a circular, disc shape; the diving wheel 3 is welded to the stator 4 through weld 15a, fig. 3).
Lichtenwald, fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
618
428
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 Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Lichtenwald, where instead of the gearing being welded to a shaft, as taught by Kawamoto, the gear was welded to a driving wheel, as taught by Lichtenwald, in order to use a driving wheel that allows for phase adjustment between a camshaft and a crankshaft, which facilitates gas exchange valve time control for internal combustion engines by changing the opening and closing times of the gas exchange valves as a result of changing the phase between the driven part and the driving wheel (Lichtenwald, paras 0001-0005).
Regarding claim 9, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component is configured in a shape of a circular disc.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Lichtenwald teaches wherein the first component (driving wheel 3, fig. 3) is configured in a shape of a circular disc (a wheel is construed as having a circular, disc shape; the diving wheel 3 is welded to the stator 4 through weld 15a, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Lichtenwald, where instead of the gearing being welded to a shaft, as taught by Kawamoto, the gear was welded to a driving wheel, as taught by Lichtenwald, in order to use a driving wheel that allows for phase adjustment between a camshaft and a crankshaft, which facilitates gas exchange valve time control for internal combustion engines by changing the opening and closing times of the gas exchange valves as a result of changing the phase between the driven part and the driving wheel (Lichtenwald, paras 0001-0005).
Regarding claim 11, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first component is configured as at least one of a cover and stator cover on a camshaft adjuster.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Lichtenwald teaches wherein the first component (driving wheel 3, fig. 3) is configured as at least one of a cover and stator cover (the wheel 3 is construed as a cover for the stator 4, fig. 3) on a camshaft adjuster (adjuster 1, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Lichtenwald, where instead of the gearing being welded to a shaft, as taught by Kawamoto, the gear was welded to a driving wheel, as taught by Lichtenwald, in order to use a driving wheel that allows for phase adjustment between a camshaft and a crankshaft, which facilitates gas exchange valve time control for internal combustion engines by changing the opening and closing times of the gas exchange valves as a result of changing the phase between the driven part and the driving wheel (Lichtenwald, paras 0001-0005).
Regarding claim 12, Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second component is configured as at least one of a stator and a stator of a camshaft adjuster.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Lichtenwald teaches wherein the second component (stator 4, sealing disk 17, and housing 15, fig. 3; para 0041) is configured as at least one of a stator (stator 4 is a stator) and a stator of a camshaft adjuster (adjuster 1, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Lichtenwald, where instead of the gearing being welded to a shaft, as taught by Kawamoto, the gear was welded to a driving wheel, as taught by Lichtenwald, such that the sintered material 4, as taught by Kawamoto, was a stator 4, sealing disk 17, and a housing 15, as taught by Lichtenwald in order to use a driving wheel that allows for phase adjustment between a camshaft and a crankshaft, which facilitates gas exchange valve time control for internal combustion engines by changing the opening and closing times of the gas exchange valves as a result of changing the phase between the driven part and the driving wheel (Lichtenwald, paras 0001-0005; Lichtenwald teaches that the stator can be “sintered,” para 0041).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawamoto et al. (JP-H0284287-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Rothstein et al. (US-20180306302-A1).
Kawamoto teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least one groove formed parallel to the joining joint, wherein the groove is formed recessed in one of the first component and the second component.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser welding, Rothstein teaches further comprising at least one groove (groove 30, fig. 7) formed parallel to the joining joint (underneath weld W, figs. 9-10; the groove 30 is construed as being parallel the weld W), wherein the groove is formed recessed in one of the first component (not explicitly disclosed) and the second component (gear workpiece 12, fig. 7).
Rothstein, fig. 9
PNG
media_image5.png
460
872
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 Kawamoto, in view of the teachings of Rothstein, by inserting a groove, as taught by Rothstein, into the sintered material 4 at the connection with material 5, as taught by Kawamoto, in order to use an undercut groove that provides space underneath the weld, so that the weld does not have to removed or burred prior to the solidification of the weld, such that the quality or appearance of the weld is not adversely affected (Rothstein, paras 0042 and 0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brand et al. (US-11473454-B2) teach an invention similar to the instant application.
Brand et al. (US-11946394-B2) teach an invention similar to the instant application.
Takahashi et al. (JP-H04284989-A) teach a composition that is within the scope of claim 8
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 4/14/2026
Prosecution Insights