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 08/10/2023 and 07/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1(a)-4 and claims 1, 9 and 12-17) in the reply filed on 05/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 18-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a joining position” (line 4), and the claim also recites “a joining point” (lines 4-5) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, the feature “a joining point” introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required
Claims 9 and 12-17 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki JP2013146737A (Admission by Applicant as a prior art, see para.005-007 of the current application, English Translation is attached) in view of Denney (US 20150251275 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses
A laser brazing method for a flared joint (see fig.1) comprising a steel sheet and an aluminum-based sheet material (See para.0028: “A steel plate (plate thickness 1.0 mm) was used as the Fe-based metal member, and an Al alloy plate(plate thickness 1.2 mm) was used as the Al-based metal member”), herein:
a preceding laser beam (110, see fig.1) is irradiated ahead of a joining position (a joining point) (4, see fig.1) of the steel sheet (1, see fig.1) and the aluminum-based sheet material (2, see fig.1) in a joining direction (traveling direction F, see fig.1) to preheat a position to be joined (see para.0010: “the leading beam is positioned forward of the trailing beam in the traveling direction, and preheating is performed by the leading beam irradiation”);
an (3, see para.0017: “The Zn-based brazing material 3 may … contain Al…” so that it is interpreted as the claimed “aluminum-based filler wire”)is fed to the joining position (the joining point) (4, see fig.1) ; and
a following laser beam (120, see fig.1) is irradiated behind the filler wire (3) so that the filler wire (3) is melted to perform brazing (see para.0018: “The trailing beam 120 is a laser beam for irradiating the Zn-based brazing material 3 to melt the Zn-based brazing material 3”),
Suzuki discloses the filler wire 3 is fed with a tilt in a certain range to a front side or a rear side in the joining direction (F, see fig.1) with respect to a line that is a center line passing through a groove center of the flared joint (see center line A in annotated fig.1 below which is in Z-direction) and that is perpendicular to the joining direction (F, see fig.1, which is in in X-direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
417
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Suzuki
However, Suzuki does not expressly disclose
an electrically-heated aluminum-based filler wire; and
the range of 0≤D ≤19º.
Nevertheless, Denney discloses A welding system includes at least one high intensity energy source to create a weld puddle during a root pass on a narrow joint of a workpiece with a clad layer, comprising:
an electrically-heated aluminum-based filler wire (see para.0043: “ During operation, the filler wire 140, which leads the laser beam 110, is resistance-heated by electrical current from the hot wire welding power supply 170 which is operatively connected between the contact tube 160 and the workpiece 115” and para.0112 discloses: “ the filler wires can be …nickel aluminum bronze or aluminum bronze based wire …”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the electrically-heated aluminum-based filler wire of Denney for the filler wire of Suzuki since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of joining dissimilar materials such as aluminum and steel (see para.0113 of Denney).
Suzuki in view of Denney discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, but is silent on
the range of 0≤D ≤19º.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (fig. 1 of Suzuki), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). In this case, Suzuki in view of Denney teaches the filler wire is fed with the tilt in the certain range to a front side or a rear side in the joining direction with respect to the line that is the center line passing through the groove center of the flared joint and that is perpendicular to the joining direction (see fig.1 of Suzuki) and having a specific range is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the range is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the range of 0≤D ≤19º, in in order to reduce spatter and irregular deposition when the molten metal can flow into the weld pool more smoothly, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Denney as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Musselman (US 20040173587 A)
Regarding claim 9, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the steel sheet has a coating layer containing zinc as a main component, and the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam.
Musselman discloses a method for a hybrid laser welding multiple sheets of steel together, comprising:
the steel sheet has a coating layer containing zinc as a main component (see para.0013: “ser weld steel sheets that have a thin corrosion protective coating of zinc”), and the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam (see para.0013: “A laser beam, which is positioned normal to the sheets, is then applied to the sheets to melt the material of the sheets and create a weld”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the steel sheet of Musselman for the one of Suzuki in view of Denney so as “the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam” as taught by Musselman, since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of welding the steel sheet to another workpiece.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Denney as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yang (US 20190126402 A1)
Regarding claim 13, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the method satisfies at least one selected from following conditions (1) to (3): (1) the steel sheet is a steel sheet coated with flux; (2) the filler wire is a flux-cored wire; and (3) the preceding laser beam is a solid-state laser.
Yang discloses a metal joining process satisfies the following condition:
the preceding laser beam is a solid-state laser (See para.0028: “The transmitted laser beam may be a solid-state laser beam”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the solid-state laser of Yang for the one of Suzuki in view of Denney since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of welding the dissimilar metals.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Denney/Yang as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Musselman (US 20040173587 A)
Regarding claim 16, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the steel sheet has a coating layer containing zinc as a main component, and the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam.
Musselman discloses a method for a hybrid laser welding multiple sheets of steel together, comprising:
the steel sheet has a coating layer containing zinc as a main component (see para.0013: “ser weld steel sheets that have a thin corrosion protective coating of zinc”), and the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam (see para.0013: “A laser beam, which is positioned normal to the sheets, is then applied to the sheets to melt the material of the sheets and create a weld”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the steel sheet of Musselman for the one of Suzuki in view of Denney/Yang so as “the brazing is performed in a state where the coating layer is melted with the preceding laser beam” as taught by Musselman, since the substitution one known element for another one would yield a predictable result of welding the steel sheet to another workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-15 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2007152381 A (Cited in 8/10/2023 IDS) discloses the method for laser brazing, objects 1, 2 to be joined are joined by supplying a joining material W to at least one of the irradiation areas of a plurality of laser beams while moving the irradiation areas in a brazing direction that follows a predetermined joint part of the objects 1, 2. The plurality of laser beams includes a preceding laser beam 3 and a succeeding laser beam 4. The preceding laser beam 3 is radiated from the front of a supply position, where the joining material W is supplied for the predetermined joint part, in the brazing direction. The succeeding laser beam 4 is radiated from the rear of the supply position in the brazing direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 on (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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights