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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 04/21/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-17 are pending:
Claims 2-6, 16-17 are withdrawn
Claims 1, 7-15 are examined on the merits
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I and Species B2 (Fig5-8, 9B) in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 2-6, 16-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023, 09/13/2023, 02/26/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The office strongly encourages applicant to confirm all units recited in claims.
In particular Claim 2, while withdrawn, recites “μm” while the associated features in the specification only recite “nm”.
Claim 14
L4 delete duplicate “[[the]] the first member” to improve clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker (US 2021/0402518).
Claim 1
Bocksrocker discloses:
“A welding method (arrangement and method best seen Fig1-3) of welding end portions (wire ends 2) of a first member (wire 3) and a second member (wire 3) with first laser light (laser beam 4 and in particular with laser light of ring 9 from ring fiber 12) irradiated by a laser device (laser beam generator 5), the welding method comprising:
arranging the end portions of the first member and the second member next to each other (Fig1/3, wires 3 have ends 2 abutted in arrangement face 15 of Fig1) facing an end surface of the end portions of the first member and the second member faces towards the laser device (Fig1/3, ends 2 abutting face 15 faces laser beam 4);
performing rotational irradiation (Fig3, laser beam 4 path 16 on abutted face arrangement 15) to the end surface of the end portions of the first member and the second member (Fig3, laser beam 4 path 16 on abutted face arrangement 15) with the first laser light at a predetermined rotating diameter (Fig3, diameter of circular path 16),
wherein a spot diameter of the first laser light (Fig1-2, first spot diameter S.R) …, and
wherein an irradiation region of the first laser light (Fig1-2, first spot diameter S.R) by the rotational irradiation is set to extend over the first member and the second member (best seen Fig3, laser beam 4 travels on path 16 across both wire 3 faces 2 of abutting face arrangement 15).”
Bocksrocker is silent to “a spot diameter of the first laser light is set to be equal to or larger than the rotating diameter”.
There are only three possible relative dimension relationships between the spot diameter of the first laser light and the diameter of path 16 of Bocksrocker for one of ordinary skill in the art to select between: 1) spot diameter is less than path diameter, 2) spot diameter is equal to path diameter, 3) spot diameter is greater than path diameter.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform routine optimization of the dimensional relationship between the first laser light and the diameter of path 16 of Bocksrocker, as Bocksrocker is silent to the dimensions of the path diameter and one of ordinary skill in the art would have to select such a path diameter dimension in order to practice the disclosure of Bocksrocker, and thus it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try the arrangement where the spot diameter of the first laser light is equal or greater than the path diameter, as theses are two of the total of three possible relative dimensional relationships between the two diameters, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Bocksrocker with a working relative dimensional relationship between the spot diameter of the first laser light and the path diameter.
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker of Claim 1 discloses: “The welding method according to claim 9, wherein the spot diameter of the second laser light is less than … of the spot diameter of the first laser light (Bocksrocker: Para14, S.R diameter is 7:1 ratio of S.K diameter).”
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker is silent to the “1/10” relationship.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having “1/10” diameter relationship as claimed solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the implicit function of having to select a particular dimension in order to practice the arrangement in the physical world, and it appears the “7:1 ratio” diameter relationship of Bocksrocker would perform equally well to that of Applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify 7:1 ratio between the laser diameters of the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker to a “1/10” relative relationship between the laser diameters for the purpose of selecting another equally performing particular physical diameter relationship in order to practice the disclosure in the real world.
Claim 14
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker of Claim 1 discloses: “The welding method according to claim 1, wherein each of the first member and the second member (Bocksrocker: Fig1/3, first and second wire 3) is a flat conductor having a rectangular cross section (Bocksrocker: best seen Fig3, wire 3 end 2 is rectangular) constituting a stator coil (Bocksrocker: Para2/4/5, arrangement is a hairpin welding apparatus that is used in stator windings for electric motors), and wherein a molten ball is formed on the end surface by welding the the first member and the second member (Bocksrocker: Para30, molten weld bead is formed on abutting face arrangement 15 when laser 4 travels path 16).”
Claim(s) 7-9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker (US 2021/0402518) in view of Zediker (US 2020/0206844).
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker of Claim 1 discloses: “The welding method according to claim 1 further comprising performing rotational irradiation to the end surface of the end portions of the first member and the second member (Bocksrocker: Fig1-3, laser beam 4 path 16 of wire 3 ends 2 forming abutting face arrangement 15) with second laser light (Bocksrocker: second laser light of core 8 of core fiber 11) having …, wherein a spot diameter of the second laser light (Bocksrocker: Fig1-2, second spot diameter S.K) is set to be smaller than the spot diameter of the first laser light (Bocksrocker: Fig1-2, second spot diameter S.K is smaller than first spot diameter S.R).”
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker is silent to the first and second laser light in the core and ring having different wavelengths.
Zediker teaches (Fig20, Para85) that it is known in the art alternatives to use a single laser beam or two simultaneous laser beams co-focused for welding. Zediker further teaches (Fig20, Para101,10, Abstract) the application of a blue laser (wavelength about 400-500 nm) as one of the lasers to use when welding copper materials.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Bocksrocker to use two laser sources as opposed to a single laser source, as Zediker teaches that such a modification would merely be a simple substitution of known in the art alternative number of laser sources to apply to coper welding, and as such the laser source for the first laser light would be replaced with the blue laser as taught by Zediker as Zediker teaches that blue lasers are known in the art for welding copper arrangements and as the arrangement of Bocksrocker requires a stronger power in the core as opposed to the ring region of the full laser welding spot, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Bocksrocker with a known and working two laser source welding arrangement with a working and known blue laser for the first ring laser light as taught by Zediker.
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker discloses: “The welding method according to claim 7, wherein an optical axis of the first laser light coincides with an optical axis of the second laser light (Bocksrocker: Fig1-2, first and second laser light 8/9 are axially coincident).”
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker discloses: “The welding method according to claim 8, wherein a wavelength of the second laser light is set to be in a range from 780 nm to 1,100 nm (Bocksrocker: Para18/26, laser beam 4 wavelength 1030 nm).”
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker discloses: “The welding method according to claim 9, wherein the spot diameter of the second laser light is set to be in a range from 10 μm to 100 μm (Bocksrocker: Para19, core spot diameter is 85 μm).”
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker discloses: “The welding method according to claim 7, wherein the first laser light and the second laser light are rotated at a rotating speed that is set to be in a range from 100 mm/s to 1,000 mm/s (Bocksrocker: Para30, laser beam 4 travels circular path 16 at 800 mm/s).”
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker discloses the arrangement of claim 7.
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker is silent to the particular irradiation time.
Zediker teaches (Para153, Fig30) that a laser’s dwell time during welding is a result-effective variable that determines if the laser beam has sufficient time to form a weld with “preferred results” including cross-sectional weld penetration depth.
According to MPEP 2144.05.II.B, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform result-effective variable optimization on the dwell/irradiation time of the laser beam of the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker, as selecting the correct dwell time for the weld is a determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to come to in order to practice the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker, and the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process, and Zediker teaches that a laser’s dwell time during welding is a result-effective variable that determines if the laser beam has sufficient time to form a weld with “preferred results” including cross-sectional weld penetration depth, and the resulting arrangement of the result-effective variable optimization of dwell time has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker with a patentably similar laser welding dwell time of “50 msec or longer” as both the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker and applicant are using the same variable of dwell/irradiation time of the laser beam during welding and have the same motivation of having “preferred results”.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker (US 2021/0402518) in view of in view of Zediker (US 2020/0206844) and Martukanitz (US 2006/0255019).
Claim 15
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker of Claim 7 discloses the arrangement of claim 7.
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker is silent to the application of blown clearing gas.
Zediker teaches:
“…
blowing nitrogen (Zediker: Para19, nitrogen gas) onto the end surface of the first member and the second member (Zediker: Para18, clearing gas is blown along the laser beam path) at a flow rate (Zediker: Para18, clearing gas flowrate is “predetermined”) in a range from … and at an inclination angle in a range from 0° to 90° with respect to the end surface (Zediker: Para18, clearing gas is blow along the laser beam path, an angle between 0-90 degrees off the workpiece is implicit to any gas flow directed at the worksurface, instant recitation is not limiting),
wherein the blowing of the nitrogen is started simultaneously with start of performing the rotational irradiation of the first laser light and the second laser light or is started before the start of performing the rotational irradiation, and is ended when the rotational irradiation is ended or after the rotational irradiation is ended (Zediker: Para18, clearing gas is provided along laser beam path during use to prevent oxidation during welding).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker to include the non-oxidizing clearing gas arrangement as taught by Zediker, as such a clearing gas arrangement provides the advantage of preventing oxidation of the weld region during welding, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker with a known in the art weld oxidation prevention clearing gas arrangement as taught by Zediker.
The modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker is silent to a particular value/range of the nitrogen clearing gas flowrate.
Martukanitz teaches (Para27) that a known in the art flow rate for a non-oxidating clearing gas is 110 cfh (cubic foot/hour) which is equivalent to roughly 52 L/min (see screenshot below for unit conversion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a known flowrate for the non-oxidating clearing gas for the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker as such a selection would need to be made in order to practice the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker, and Martukanitz teaches that a clearing gas flow rate of roughly 52 L/min is a known in the art selection for a welding application, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Bocksrocker by the teachings of Zediker with a known in the art clearing gas flowrate as taught by Martukanitz.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,115,595 to Bocksrocker: US Patent version of Bocksrocker above
US 11,612,957 to Zediker: US Patent version of Zediker above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights