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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 6-12 are cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/14/2026 have been entered.
103 rejections have been altered in view of the amendments
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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi et al (JP 2020093272 A; machine translation) in view of Wang et al (CN 110202853A; machine translation), further in view of Shioga et al (US 20160114429 A1), and in view of Tsuchiya et al (US 20180269459 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Nozomi teaches a laser welding method for electrode terminals in which aluminum material and copper material are laser welded together by irradiating a joint in which the copper material is layered on top of the aluminum material (Paragraph 0006). Further, Nozomi states that the copper material 2b is placed on top of aluminum material 2a and the laser emitted from the welding device 1 is irradiated onto the copper material 2b side (Paragraph 0010). This is akin to the first member being an aluminum containing layer, and a second member being a copper containing layer which overlap to form a contact portion, and the second main surface is irradiated with a laser.
Nozomi teaches a control unit 13 that controls the operation of the laser head 12 to adjust the position of the laser light, the output of the laser light, the focused diameter, the scanning speed, and energy input to the bonded body (Paragraph 0016). The control unit allows the temperature rise to be adjusted at the dissimilar metal joint 2c of the joint 2. Hence, Nozomi teaches that the temperature of the contact portion can be adjusted and optimized to meet the requirements of the bonded material. The instant specification also states that the temperature of the contact portion 30 can be adjusted by a combination of the power, the scanning speed, the scanning pattern, the wavelength, and the beam diameter of the laser 60 (Paragraph 0063; instant specification). Nozomi teaches the use of a scanning speed as a condition of irradiating with the laser beam (Paragraph 0017), and hence teaches that that the surface is scanned.
Nozomi does not explicitly teach that the temperature of the contact portion is equal to or higher than the eutectic point temperature of aluminum and copper and is lower than a melting point of the copper.
However, Wang teaches a laser beam welding method for copper and aluminum layer that uses a processing temperature of the laser beam at 450 to 659.5 ˚C (Paragraph 0033). This temperature lies within the claimed range where eutectic point is 548.2 ˚C, and the melting point of copper is 1084.62˚C (these values are found in the instant specification). Wang’s copper-aluminum composite substrate has application in wiring terminals and electrical connectors (Paragraph 0002-0005). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Nozomi with the temperature of contact portion from Wang in order to create a composite material with longer service life, lower processing costs (Paragraph 0017).
Nozomi teaches the formation of a layer of intermetallic compound of aluminum and copper between the two layers (Paragraph 0033; joining layer), but does not specifically teach that the joining layer has an aspect ratio with a width being greater than a thickness.
However, Shioga teaches a method of forming a dissimilar metal joined body of copper and aluminum such that the laser welding forms a molten mixed portion (Paragraph 0020; joining layer). The depth ‘t’ of the molten mixed portion is 5 to 30 µm (Paragraph 0027). And the width of the molten portion is 10-50 µm (Paragraph 0027, 0028). This shows that the width is greater than the thickness for the joining layer. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a joining layer would form between the two metal surfaces upon laser welding such that the aspect ratio of the joining layer is as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve joint strength and maintain ductility performance (Paragraph 0028).
Nozomi does not specifically teach that the second main surface is irradiated in a linear trajectory to form a scan mark that is a streaky melting mark indicating the position of a joining layer disposed between the first member and the second member.
However, Tsuchiya teaches a laser weld for joining a member A made of copper and a member B made of aluminum (Paragraph 0127). The welding is performed as line welding (linear trajectory). As shown in figure 17, a structurally altered part C where the structure of the member A has been altered due to the heat from welding, and a structurally altered part D where the structure of the member B has been altered due to the heat from welding, are formed in the welded location, and an intermetallic compound E which is a compound of the structurally altered part C and the structurally altered part D, is formed at the interface between the two parts. A structurally altered part is formed due to the melting and deformation of the metal material being laser welded. Hence, it is expected that the surface of the top layer of metal will exhibit some deformations or defects at the location of the laser weld.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a scan mark that is a streaky melting mark on the second main surface based on the process of Nozomi and as explained in Tsuchiya when linear laser welding in performed to form joined bodies of two metals, to form excellent connection strength (Paragraph 0007).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2,
Nozomi does not explicitly teach that the temperature of contact portion is equal to or lower than a melting point of aluminum.
Wang teaches a laser beam welding method for copper and aluminum layer that uses a processing temperature of the laser beam at 450 to 659.5 ˚C (Paragraph 0033). This temperature includes the claimed range of being lower than melting point of aluminum 660.45˚C (value found in instant specification). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Nozomi with the temperature of contact portion from Wang in order to create a composite material with longer service life, lower processing costs (Paragraph 0017).
Regarding Claim 4,
Nozomi teaches that the aluminum and copper materials are plate shaped members (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
590
490
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi, Wang, Shioga, Tsuchiya, further in view of Bunaziv et al (Bunaziv, I.; Akselsen, O.M.; Ren, X.; Nyhus, B.; Eriksson, M.; Gulbrandsen-Dahl, S. A Review on Laser-Assisted Joining of Aluminium Alloys to Other Metals. Metals 2021, 11, 1680).
Nozomi does not teach the use of blue laser or a green laser.
However, Bunaziv teaches that for high reflective materials such as Cu alloys, a blue laser (450 nm wavelength) is preferable and proven on industrial scale. This is also further shown in Figure 6a as below.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
545
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per instant specification, the wavelengths associated with blue and green lasers are 400-500 nm. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use blue or green laser in order to improve the absorption characteristics of the joined body.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozomi, Wang, Shioga, Tsuchiya, further in view of Wollny et al (DE 10022604 A1; machine translation).
Nozomi teaches that the first member is a plate shaped member as shown in Figure 1, but does not explicitly teach that the second member is a wire rod. Nozomi does not particularly constrain the shape of the copper material in the disclosure.
However, Wollny teaches a method of producing electrical contact strips made of aluminum and attaching conductor wires made of copper using laser pressure welding process (Paragraph 0001, and 0006). Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper wire rods as the second member in order to make a material with good electrical conductivity (Paragraph 0005).
References of Interest
Hollatz, S., Heinen, P., Limpert, E. et al. Overlap joining of aluminium and copper using laser micro welding with spatial power modulation. Weld World 64, 513–522 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40194-020-00848-9
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Nozomi and Wang do not disclose or make obvious the features of amended Claim 1. Examiner points to the updated rejection of Claim 1 in this office action that provides prior art of Shioga and Tsuchiya for the amended claim, and motivation to combine.
Applicant argues that there would be no motivation in Nozomi to irradiate with the laser in a linear trajectory. Examiner points to the updated rejection of Claim 1 in this office action that provides motivation related to the use of linear laser welding to form joints with higher strength. Nozomi teaches that the method has the advantages of longer service life (related to joint strength; Paragraph 0017), and to overcome problems with prior art such as “joint welded are very brittle, and pores and cracks are easily generated in the welds” (Paragraph 0007). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Nozomi with Shioga and Tsuchiya.
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 SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Maria Veronica D. Ewald can be reached on 571-272-8519. 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.
/SUHANI JITENDRA PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783