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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202210129389, filed on February 11, 2022.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. The amendments made in claim 4 overcome the previously set forth 112(b) rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/17/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are as previously presented.
Th amendments to the specification overcomes the previously set forth specification objection. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
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 foreign document cited is citing the English translation of the publication, which has been attached by the examiner.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al (US Patent No. 11453085-B2), hereinafter Yasuda, in view of Tano et al (US Publication No. 20210213565), hereinafter Tano.
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches a method of manufacturing a joined member by joining a first metal member (Fig. 3, upper base material 60) and a second metal member (lower base material 70), the method comprising: melting an end portion (end surface 63) on a joining side (63) of the first metal member (60), while the first metal member (60) is disposed adjacent (Col. 5, lines 22-26) to at least a portion of the second metal member (70), by irradiating while scanning (Col. 3, lines 9-12 & 19-21) a heat source (laser beam 40), wherein the heat source (40) irradiated to the end portion (63) on the joining side (63) of the first metal member (60) has a central portion (first peak area 41) and a peripheral portion (Col. 2, lines 64-68; first side, second side) located at a periphery (first side, second side) of the central portion (41) and having energy intensity lower (Col. 6, lines 37-39) than that of the central portion (41).
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda teaches the first metal member (61) is in a plate shape (Col. 4, lines 41-43), and has a region (63) opposed to the second member (71) without contacting the second member at the end portion (63) on the joining side (63) of the first member (61), and the peripheral portion (first side, second side) is also irradiated (Col. 6, lines 1-3) to the second metal member (71).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda fails to teach a circular central portion and an elliptical peripheral portion located at an entire periphery of the central portion, and the peripheral portion having a length in a scanning direction of a heat source longer than a length in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the scanning direction of the heat source.
Tano teaches an additive manufacturing device (Title) having a beam formed in a circular radiation shape (Pg. 3, par. 39; Fig. 9) and a shape of an outer light radiation range SS is an elliptical shape (Pg. 6, par. 77) having a major axis in a direction along the movement direction SD as shown in FIG. 12 (Pg. 6, par. 77) for the purpose of heating the designated areas at different temperatures (Pg. 1, par. 9).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have modified the modified method Yasuda to have a beam with a circular central portion and an elliptical peripheral portion located at an entire periphery of the central portion, and the peripheral portion having a length in a scanning direction of a heat source longer than a length in a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the scanning direction of the heat source for the purpose of heating the designated areas at different temperatures.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified method of Yasuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katoh et al (WO Patent Document No. 2007094203-A1).
Yasuda teaches the upper and lower base materials for welding may be made of aluminum or an alloy containing aluminum or steel (Col. 4, lines 43-47). However, the modified device of Yasuda fails to teach welding an alloyed-zinc plated steel sheet and an aluminum alloy plate together (claims 2 and 3), and as a scanning speed of a heat source is higher, the length of a peripheral portion in a scanning direction of the heat source becomes longer (claim 4).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Katoh teaches welding two metal members. The first metal member is an aluminum alloy plate (Fig. 1, aluminum alloy material 2) for the purpose of having a high strength material (Pg. 56, par. 380). The second metal member is a steel sheet plated with alloyed-zinc (Pg 29, par. 172; Fig. 1, steel sheet 3). Katoh utilizes the alloyed zinc plating for the purpose of quickly ensuring a good joint condition (Pg. 29, par. 171).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have modified the modified method of Yasuda to utilize alloyed zinc plating on steel when welding aluminum and steel sheets together as taught by Katoh for the purpose of quickly ensuring a good joint condition with a high strength material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified method of Yasuda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kagiya et al (US Publication No. 20180361515), hereinafter Kagiya.
The modified device of Yasuda fails to teach a scanning condition of the heat source is computer-controlled such that, by controlling and increasing a scanning speed of the heat source the length of the peripheral portion in the scanning direction of the heat source becomes longer.
Regarding claim 4, Kagiya teaches a method for detecting a hole in a laser-welded portion (Title) wherein a control unit adjusts the beam diameter and the scanning speed of the laser beam (Pg. 2, par. 26) for the purpose of adjusting the amount of heat that is input to the welded portion (Pg. 2, par. 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to modify the modified method of Yasuda to incorporate the teachings of Kagiya to have a scanning condition of the heat source that is computer-controlled such that, by controlling and increasing a scanning speed of the heat source the length of the peripheral portion in the scanning direction of the heat source becomes longer for the purpose of adjusting the amount of heat that is input to the welded portion to yield the predictable result of producing a good joint.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6, filed 2/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment. As written in the corresponding USC 103 rejection above, Tano teaches a beam with a circular central portion and an elliptical peripheral portion located at an entire periphery of the central portion for the purpose of heating the designated areas at different temperatures. Fig. 9 of Tano further depicts the inner beam as the central portion and the outer beam around an entire periphery of the inner beam.
Regarding the amendments to claim 4, they overcome the previously set forth USC 103 rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/17/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment. As written in the corresponding USC 103 rejection above, Kagiyu teaches a scanning condition of the heat source is computer-controlled such that, by controlling and increasing a scanning speed of the heat source the length of the peripheral portion in the scanning direction of the heat source becomes longer.
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 CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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, 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761