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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 20190337086 A1), in view of Byun et al. (US 20110244309 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses
A dissimilar metal welded body (bimetal 1, fig.2) comprising:
a first member (high thermal expansion layer 2, fig.2);
a second member (low thermal expansion layer 3, fig.2);
a welded portion (clad material joined, Par.0018) formed by pressure-welding an end face of the first member and an end face of the second member to each other [Par.0018 cited: “…high thermal expansion layer 2 and the low thermal expansion layer 3 constitute a clad material joined through rolling, diffusion annealing, and the like…”]; and
a metal film (corrosion resistant plating layer 4, fig.2) that continuously covers an entire outer surface the first member (high thermal expansion layer 2), the welded portion (clad material joined, Par.0018), and at least a part of the second member (low thermal expansion layer 3),
However, Nishimura does not disclose a first member made of a metal containing aluminum as a main component; a second member made of a metal containing copper as a main component; and the metal film is a film made of a metal containing copper as a main component.
Byun discloses a first member (bus bar 33, fig.5) made of a metal containing aluminum as a main component; a second member (negative electrode rivet 13, fig.5) made of a metal containing copper (negative electrode rivet 13 is copper, fig.5) as a main component; and the metal film (rivet terminal 23, fig.5) is a film made of a metal containing copper as a main component [Par.0049 cited: “…rivet terminal 23 formed of a copper material and the bus bar 33 formed of an aluminum material …”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify dissimilar metal welded body of Nishimura, by including a first member made of a metal containing aluminum as a main component; a second member made of a metal containing copper as a main component; and the metal film is a film made of a metal containing copper as a main component, as taught by Byun, in order to improve a method for forming materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
469
1008
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Nishimura and Byun does not disclose the metal film has a thickness of 3 μm or less.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the metal film Nishimura, has a thickness of 3 μm or less, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Regarding claim 3, Byun discloses
one of the first member (bus bar 33, fig.5) and the second member (negative electrode rivet 13, fig.5) is an electroconductive component [bus bar 33, fig.5, is an electroconductive], and the other (negative electrode rivet 13) is a terminal, a wiring, or an electrode of the electroconductive component [negative electrode rivet 13, fig.5, is an electrode].
Regarding claim 4, Byun discloses
the first member (bus bar 33, fig.5) and the second member (negative electrode rivet 13, fig.5) are each any one among a coil, a terminal, and a busbar [bus bar 33, fig.5, is a busbar, and negative electrode rivet 13 is a terminal].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify dissimilar metal welded body of Nishimura, by including a first member made of a metal containing aluminum as a main component; a second member made of a metal containing copper as a main component; and the metal film is a film made of a metal containing copper as a main component, as taught by Byun, in order to improve a method for forming materials.
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Nishimura and Byun does not disclose a resin film is provided on the metal film.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the metal film Nishimura, by including a resin film, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order to protect the metal film.
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura discloses
the metal film (corrosion resistant plating layer 4, fig.2) continuously covers a region that occupies substantially 100% of an entire outer surface of the first member (high thermal expansion layer 2, fig.2) and at least a part of the second member (low thermal expansion layer 3, fig.2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 20190337086 A1), in view of Byun et al. (US 20110244309 A1) and further in view of Tamura et al. (US 20090212896 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of Nishimura and Byun discloses the first member and the second member, does not disclose the first member is a coil and second member is a terminal.
Tamura discloses a welded body (illustrates in fig.1) comprises a first member (coil assembly, fig.1) is a coil and a second member (terminal members 2, fig.1) is a terminal [Par.0005 cited: “…the electric wires or coil windings are made of aluminum, it is not infrequently required for those electric wires or coil windings to be electrically welded or soldered to existing electric terminal members or wires made of copper…”].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify replace a first member and a second member of Nishimura, by using a coil and a terminal, as taught by Tamura, in order to provide a welding process of coil and terminal.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Claim Objections and Rejection 112b: the amended claim filed on 05/27/2026, that overcame the Claim Objections and Rejection 112b.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argued: “…the cited references fail to disclose or suggest "the metal film is a film made of a metal containing copper as a main component" as claimed…”, in Remark Pages 6-8.
The examiner’s response: the applicant’s argument above is not persusasive because in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the secondary Byun reference is only used to disclose a metal which containing copper material, as cited in Par.0049; the other limitation such as “the metal film is a film” that already disclosed by the primary Nishimura reference as shown in fig.2, with corrosion resistant plating layer 4 is considered as “a metal film”. Additionally, the Nishimura and Byun references are related as the same technical field of welding area, such that it would have been obvious to combine them.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. De Luca (US 4151392) is considered as a relevant prior art in field of two dissimilar metal of cooper and aluminum are metallurgically joined by welding, as cited in background but does not disclose a metal film….
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/04/2026
Prosecution Insights