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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, 21, 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0354248) in view of Trojanowski, Jr. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0362278) and Schaupp et al. (DE102017130686, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Fujimoto et al. discloses a method of assembling a vehicle component (e.g. paragraph 2), comprising: forming a blank (10/20 as a whole or 21 alone) from a steel sheet (paragraph 107), wherein the steel sheet includes a coating on a surface (paragraphs 108, 122); removing the coating from a first interface surface of the blank by laser ablation (paragraph 108); stamping the blank either prior to or after removing the coating (paragraph 111); arranging the first interface surface relative to a second interface surface (either of part 11 or of parts 22); and thermally joining the first interface surface to the second interface surface to form a joint (joining 10 to 11, paragraph 115; or joining 21 to 22 - paragraph 108).
Fujimoto does not disclose that the blank is formed by laser cutting with a laser welder. However, Trojanowski generally teaches a similar method including cutting (e.g. from a coil, step 1010) a blank (paragraphs 97-98) prior to subsequent forming operations. Such would have been obvious in order to have provided a continuous supply on a coil and singulated discrete blanks therefrom. While laser cutting is discussed throughout, Trojanowski is silent regarding the cutting technique for step 1010, but Applicant admits (see untraversed Official Notice in previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that laser cutting is a known means for cutting sheet metal and thus would have been obvious for the purpose of separating a discrete workpiece from a continuous coil, for example.
Schaupp et al. in turn teaches that a singular laser device may be used to perform any of ablating a coating, welding, and cutting (e.g. paragraphs 6-7 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same laser device (effectively a laser welder if also used for welding) for the cutting and ablation since it allows for the use of a single station and optimizes the cost and time of a manufacturing process.
Claim 2: The coating is one of a hot dipped galvanized (HDG) coating, an aluminum silicon (AlSi) coating, an electrogalvanized coating (EG), a hot dipped galvannealed (HDGA) coating, a zinc-aluminum-magnesium (ZnAlMg) coating, and an aluminum-zinc (AIZn) coating (paragraph 122).
Claim 7: The first interface surface and the second interface surface are thermally joined using at least one of the following processes: laser welding and laser brazing (paragraphs 108, 115, and 157).
Claim 10: Where the blank is taken to be part 10/20, the blank includes at least two pieces (21,22), and forming a blank further comprises laser welding the at least two pieces together to form the blank (paragraph 108).
Claim 11: Fujimoto further discloses that laser welding uses a laser (paragraph 108, 115, 157) and removing the coating uses a laser (as cited above). Schaupp, as cited above, further teaches that a laser used in ablation can advantageously be the laser used in laser welding.
Claim 12: In initially cutting the blank, Trojanowski further teaches uncoiling the steel sheet (paragraph 97). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have uncoiled the steel sheet prior to forming the blank since steel sheet is commonly supplied in bulk form on coils and such would have provided a continuous supply to the manufacturing process.
Claim 21: Fujimoto discloses a method of assembling a vehicle component (e.g. paragraph 2), comprising: forming a first blank (21) from a carbon steel sheet (paragraphs 107, 118), wherein the carbon steel sheet includes a first coating on a first surface (paragraphs 108, 122) wherein the first coating includes at least one of a hot dipped galvanized coating and an aluminum silicon coating (Id.); removing the first coating from a first interface surface of the first blank by laser ablation (paragraph 108); stamping the first blank either prior to or after removing the coating using at least one of cold stamping and hot stamping (either is contemplated - paragraph 111); removing a second coating on a second interface surface of a second blank (22) by at least one of laser ablation and mechanical abrasion (either is contemplated - paragraph 108); arranging the first interface surface relative to the second interface surface (Fig. 9); and thermally joining the first interface surface to the second interface surface to form a joint (paragraph 108).
Fujimoto does not disclose that the first blank is formed by laser cutting with a laser welder. However, Trojanowski generally teaches a similar method including cutting (e.g. from a coil, step 1010) a blank (paragraphs 97-98) prior to subsequent forming operations. Such would have been obvious in order to have provided a continuous supply on a coil and singulated discrete blanks therefrom. While laser cutting is discussed throughout, Trojanowski is silent regarding the cutting technique for step 1010, but Applicant admits (see untraversed Official Notice in previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that laser cutting is a known means for cutting sheet metal and thus would have been obvious for the purpose of separating a discrete workpiece from a continuous coil, for example.
Schaupp et al. in turn teaches that a singular laser device may be used to perform any of ablating a coating, welding, and cutting (e.g. paragraphs 6-7 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same laser device (effectively a laser welder if also used for welding) for the cutting and ablation since it allows for the use of a single station and optimizes the cost and time of a manufacturing process.
Claims 23-24: Fujimoto, Trojanowski, Jr., and Schaupp do not teach wherein the blank includes a ferritic grade of stainless steel, specifically wherein chromium is present at 10 percent by weight to 25 percent by weight of the stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 41, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the blank material.
Claims 25 and 28: Referring to Fujimoto, the blank (as 21) is monolithic.
Claims 26-27: As further taught by Schaupp, the laser welder is advantageously used to thermally join the first interface surface to the second interface surface (welding in addition to cutting and ablation).
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 12, 16-17, 21, and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0095886) in view of Trojanowski, Jr. and Schaupp et al.
Claim 1: Gu et al. discloses a method of assembling a vehicle component (paragraph 2), comprising: forming a blank from a steel sheet (paragraph 28), wherein the steel sheet includes a coating on a surface (Id.); removing the coating from a first interface surface of the blank by laser ablation (e.g. paragraphs 29, 42); forming the blank either prior to or after removing the coating (paragraphs 39-40); arranging the first interface surface relative to a second interface surface (paragraph 42); and thermally joining the first interface surface to the second interface surface to form a joint (e.g. paragraphs 32 and 43).
With regard to forming, Gu et al. discloses heating and forming with a tool, but not explicitly stamping. However, Trojanowski teaches a similar method whereby a part may be stamped (e.g. paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stamped the part as it represents an established method by which a coated steel sheet may be shaped to form a vehicle part and to provide desirable microstructure.
Gu does not disclose that the blank is formed by laser cutting with a laser welder. However, Trojanowski also teaches cutting (e.g. from a coil, step 1010) a blank (paragraphs 97-98) prior to subsequent forming operations. Such would have been obvious in order to have provided a continuous supply on a coil and singulated discrete blanks therefrom. While laser cutting is discussed throughout, Trojanowski is silent regarding the cutting technique for step 1010, but Applicant admits (see untraversed Official Notice in previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that laser cutting is a known means for cutting sheet metal and thus would have been obvious for the purpose of separating a discrete workpiece from a continuous coil, for example.
Schaupp et al. in turn teaches that a singular laser device may be used to perform any of ablating a coating, welding, and cutting (e.g. paragraphs 6-7 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same laser device (effectively a laser welder if also used for welding) for the cutting and ablation since it allows for the use of a single station and optimizes the cost and time of a manufacturing process.
Claim 2: Referring to Gu, The coating is one of a hot dipped galvanized (HDG) coating, an aluminum silicon (AlSi) coating, an electrogalvanized coating (EG), a hot dipped galvannealed (HDGA) coating, a zinc-aluminum-magnesium (ZnAlMg) coating, and an aluminum-zinc (AIZn) coating (e.g. paragraphs 28-29, 39).
Claim 7: The first interface surface and the second interface surface are thermally joined using at least one of the following processes: laser welding and laser brazing (e.g. paragraph 32).
Claim 8: Referring to Gu, the blank is formed (specifically stamped as modified by Trojanowski) prior to removing the coating (Gu - paragraphs 40-42).
Claim 12: Trojanowski further teaches uncoiling the steel sheet prior to forming the blank (paragraph 97).
Claim 16: Trojanowski further teaches uncoiling the steel sheet prior to forming the blank (paragraph 97). Gu further discloses that the coating includes an aluminum silicon coating (e.g. paragraph 29 and 39); Gu also discloses forming the blank by hot forming before removing the coating (e.g. paragraphs 40-42), and as discussed above would be modified to be hot stamping as taught by Trojanowski; Trojanowski further teaches trimming the blank (e.g. after stamping - paragraphs 99-100), which would have been obvious for improved part accuracy following stamping (paragraphs 17-18). Because Gu generally provides a fully shaped (final shape) part proceeding into the laser ablation/welding step (paragraphs 40-42), it also would have been obvious for the trimming to have occurred before removing the coating (which happens following arrangement and welding); Finally, Gu also discloses thermally joining the first interface surface to a second interface surface through laser welding (Id.).
Claim 17: As discussed above, Trojanowski teaches trimming the blank after hot stamping the blank, and since the part is provided in its final shape proceeding into the laser ablation/welding step (as disclosed by Gu), it would have been obvious to have trimmed prior to removing the coating.
Claim 21: Gu discloses a method of assembling a vehicle component (e.g. paragraph 2), comprising: forming a first blank from a steel sheet (paragraph 28), wherein the steel sheet includes a first coating on a first surface (Id.) wherein the first coating includes at least one of a hot dipped galvanized coating and an aluminum silicon coating (e.g. paragraphs 28-29, 39); removing the first coating from a first interface surface of the first blank by laser ablation (e.g. paragraphs 29, 42); forming the first blank either prior to or after removing the coating (e.g. paragraphs 39-40); removing a second coating on a second interface surface of a second blank by at least one of laser ablation and mechanical abrasion (implied in alternative embodiment at end of paragraph 39); arranging the first interface surface relative to the second interface surface; and thermally joining the first interface surface to the second interface surface to form a joint (Id.).
Gu discloses steel but not specifically carbon steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used carbon steel since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 21, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the grade of steel, and even alternatively contemplates boron steels such as used by Gu (e.g. Gu, paragraph 40).
With regard to forming, Gu et al. discloses heating and forming with a tool, but not explicitly stamping. However, Trojanowski teaches a similar method whereby a part may be stamped (e.g. paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stamped the part as it represents an established method by which a coated steel sheet may be shaped to form a vehicle part and to provide desirable microstructure.
Gu does not disclose that the blank is formed by laser cutting with a laser welder. However, Trojanowski also teaches cutting (e.g. from a coil, step 1010) a blank (paragraphs 97-98) prior to subsequent forming operations. Such would have been obvious in order to have provided a continuous supply on a coil and singulated discrete blanks therefrom. While laser cutting is discussed throughout, Trojanowski is silent regarding the cutting technique for step 1010, but Applicant admits (see untraversed Official Notice in previous Office Action and MPEP 2144.03 C.) that laser cutting is a known means for cutting sheet metal and thus would have been obvious for the purpose of separating a discrete workpiece from a continuous coil, for example.
Schaupp et al. in turn teaches that a singular laser device may be used to perform any of ablating a coating, welding, and cutting (e.g. paragraphs 6-7 and 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same laser device (effectively a laser welder if also used for welding) for the cutting and ablation since it allows for the use of a single station and optimizes the cost and time of a manufacturing process.
Claims 23-24: Gu, Trojanowski, Jr., and Schaupp do not teach wherein the blank includes a ferritic grade of stainless steel, specifically wherein chromium is present at 10 percent by weight to 25 percent by weight of the stainless steel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Please note that in the instant application, paragraph 41, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the blank material.
Claims 25 and 28: The blank (1000 in the Figure 10 example of Gu) is monolithic.
Claims 26-27: As further taught by Schaupp, the laser welder is advantageously used to thermally join the first interface surface to the second interface surface (welding in addition to cutting and ablation).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al., Trojanowski, Jr., and Schaupp et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al.
Claim 10: Gu, Trojanowski, and Schaupp teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein the blank includes at least two pieces, and forming a blank further comprises laser welding the at least two pieces together to form the blank. However, Fujimoto teaches a similar method wherein a coated sheet blank (10) to be joined to another piece (11 - e.g. Fig. 9) includes at least two pieces (21, 22), and forming a blank further comprises laser welding the at least two pieces together to form the blank (paragraph 108). It would have been obvious to have formed the blank from at least two pieces since it suppresses fracturing (paragraph 24).
Claim 11: Gu further discloses that laser welding uses a laser and removing a coating from the welded parts uses the laser used in laser welding the at least parts (paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to have adopted this technique in joining the pieces of the blank since it would have simplified the process by requiring only a single laser device, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2025 have been fully considered. Applicants arguments essentially rely on amendments to the claims, specifically forming a blank from a steel sheet by laser cutting with a laser welder, and removing the coating from a first interface surface of the blank by laser ablation with the laser welder. However, the concept of using a common welding device for cutting, ablating, and even welding, is known for example by Schaupp, cited above in the new grounds of rejection.
With regard to Trojanowski, Applicant argues that laser cutting stations 1060 and 1070 occur after the stamping. However, the examiner cited to station 1010 as a preliminary cutting station used to singulate blanks from a coil prior to subsequent forming steps as claimed. While the specific technique for cutting in this station is not disclosed, Applicant has effectively admitted that use of a laser is obvious (the examiner’s prior Official Notice to this point is untraversed). Schaupp additionally teaches that a common laser can be used for the various laser operations as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent 6,040,549 also teaches the use of a common laser device to ablate a coating and either cut or weld a workpiece.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights