FINAL REJECTION
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 filed 04/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled. Claims 31-35 are newly added. Claims 16-35 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/12/2026.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2021/0291298 A1, previously cited) in view of Zimmer (US 2004/0021341 A1, previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 16, Maeda discloses a method for joining components, comprising:
providing an aluminum component 2 (“aluminum or aluminum alloy material”) having a joining region configured to arrange and secure a second component 3 (a steel material, Para. 0049, Fig. 1);
generating an adhesion layer 1 along or on the joining region using gas dynamic cold spraying (Para. 0049, 0052, “the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 is formed on at least a part of the surface of the aluminum or aluminum alloy material 2 by a cold spray method”); and
securing the second component 3 on the adhesion layer 1 by joining using laser welding L (Para. 0054, “the steel material 3 is disposed on the obtained low-temperature thermal spray coating 1, laser welding is performed from an opposite side to a side which faces the aluminum or the aluminum alloy material 2, of the steel material 3. Thus, the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3 are melted to form the weld metal 4”).
Maeda fails to explicitly disclose the aluminum component is a diecast aluminum component.
Zimmer teaches an aluminum component for an automobile that is a diecast aluminum component, diecasting of aluminum permitting complex shapes to be formed from a single piece of aluminum (Para. 0007).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Maeda to utilize a diecast aluminum component, as suggested in Zimmer, in order to provide a means to join a diecast aluminum component to a second component having a different material. Both Maeda and Zimmer are directed towards methods of producing components for an automobile body (Maeda Para. 0002, 0060, 0074, 0076; Zimmer Abstract, Para. 0001), and consequently, incorporating diecast aluminum components in the automobile of Maeda would have been obvious to achieve complex shapes for the body frame of the vehicle. Note, Zimmer is only being referred to for teaching that diecast aluminum components are known in the art in automobile manufacturing methods, which Maeda is directed to. Maeda teaches a method of joining dissimilar materials in an automotive manufacturing environment, including joining aluminum to steel (Maeda Para. 0010-13), and while referring to extruded aluminum as a particular embodiment (Para. 0007), states the aluminum component is “not particularly limited” and can include various other aluminum or aluminum alloy materials (Maeda Para. 0074). Consequently, knowing that diecast aluminum is well-known in automotive manufacturing based on the teaching in Zimmer, one skilled in the art would recognize that diecast aluminum is a potential aluminum material that can be incorporated into the method of Maeda, to allow joining of such material to a dissimilar material. See Response to Arguments below.
Regarding claim 17, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches further comprising: controlling of an energy input during welding such that the diecast aluminum component is not melted or incipiently melted (Fig. 1, Para. 0049, “the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3 are laser-welded by a laser beam L radiated from the steel material 3 side, and a weld metal (a weld bead) 4 is formed by melting the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3”, Para. 0055-56, “it is preferable to select an appropriate welding condition so as to melt only the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3…As conditions of the laser welding, a heat source, an output, a welding speed, a diameter of a welded portion, a gap between the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3, and the like can be appropriately selected”; Para. 0106).
Regarding claim 18, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches further comprising: through-welding through the second component 3 (Fig. 1, Para. 0049, 0054-55, the weld metal 4 resulting from the laser weld is only through the second component/steel material 3 and the adhesion layer 1; Para. 0056, “to further minimize the thermal influence on the aluminum or aluminum alloy material 2, it is preferable to select an appropriate welding condition so as to melt only the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3.”).
Regarding claim 19, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches: lengthwise welding on the second component (Fig. 1, the weld by the laser L is shown to be along a length; Para. 0088-92, “welding length: 18.8 mm”; note, the claim does not specify a distance the length must be, and consequently any welding along some length could be construed as a lengthwise weld).
Regarding claim 21, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches comprising: further securing the second component via spot and/or seam welding (Fig. 1, the second component 3 is spot welded to the adhesion layer via weld beads 4 as shown formed by the laser, i.e. via laser spot weld).
Regarding claim 22, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches wherein the components 2, 3 are positioned in the joining region over the adhesion layer 1 (Fig. 1, Para. 0054, 0087-88).
Regarding independent claim 30, Maeda discloses a component connection comprising:
a first component 2 (Fig. 1) composed of an aluminum material (Para. 0049, “aluminum or aluminum alloy material”), and
a second component 3 composed of a steel material (Fig. 1, Para. 0049, “steel material”),
wherein the first and second components are secured to one another along a joining region (Fig. 1, overlapping region shown, Para. 0049),
the first component 2 in the joining region has an adhesion layer 1 generated via a thermal spraying method (Para. 0049, 0052, “the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 is formed on at least a part of the surface of the aluminum or aluminum alloy material 2 by a cold spray method”), and
the second component is secured to the adhesion layer via laser welding L (Para. 0054, “the steel material 3 is disposed on the obtained low-temperature thermal spray coating 1, laser welding is performed from an opposite side to a side which faces the aluminum or the aluminum alloy material 2, of the steel material 3. Thus, the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 and the steel material 3 are melted to form the weld metal 4”).
Maeda fails to explicitly disclose the aluminum component is a diecast aluminum component.
Zimmer teaches an aluminum component for an automobile that is a diecast aluminum component, diecasting of aluminum permitting complex shapes to be formed from a single piece of aluminum (Para. 0007).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the component connection of Maeda to utilize a diecast aluminum component, as suggested in Zimmer, in order to provide a joint that can join a diecast aluminum component to a second component having a different material. Both Maeda and Zimmer are directed towards methods of producing components for an automobile body (Maeda Para. 0002, 0060, 0074, 0076; Zimmer Abstract, Para. 0001), and consequently, incorporating diecast aluminum components in the automobile of Maeda would have been obvious to achieve complex shapes for the body frame of the vehicle. Note, Zimmer is only being referred to for teaching that diecast aluminum components are known in the art in automobile manufacturing methods, which Maeda is directed to. Maeda teaches joining dissimilar materials in an automotive manufacturing environment, including joining aluminum materials to steel materials (Maeda Para. 0010-13), and while referring to extruded aluminum as a particular embodiment (Para. 0007), states the aluminum component is “not particularly limited” and can include various other aluminum or aluminum alloy materials (Maeda Para. 0074). Consequently, knowing that diecast aluminum is well-known in automotive manufacturing based on the teaching in Zimmer, one skilled in the art would recognize that diecast aluminum is a potential aluminum material that can be incorporated into the method of Maeda, to allow joining of such material to a dissimilar material. See Response to Arguments below.
Regarding claim 31, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches wherein the second component is composed of a steel material (Para. 0049, “steel material 3” Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches wherein the adhesion layer 1 is composed of a steel material or an iron/steel-based material (Para. 0050, “The low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 includes at least one metal selected from ferritic stainless steel, austenitic stainless steel, and ferritic and austenitic two-phase stainless steel.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer, further in view of King (US 2017/0157671 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches passing over the joining region to generate the adhesion layer (Para. 0049, 0052, “the low-temperature thermal spray coating 1 is formed on at least a part of the surface of the aluminum or aluminum alloy material 2 by a cold spray method”).
Maeda in view of Zimmer fails to teach the passing over the joining region is done spirally.
King teaches a cold spray applicator for forming a preform via layer deposition on a substrate, wherein the cold spray is passed over the substrate spirally to generate the layers (Abstract, Para. 0033, 0085).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Maeda in view of Zimmer to include passing over the joining region spirally to form the cold spray layers, as taught by King, in order to provide a spraying pattern that can improve uniformity of the deposition’s microstructure (i.e. of the adhesion layer) on the targeted workpiece (in this case the aluminum component; King Para. 0007, 0017, 0048, 0127).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer, further in view of Wang (US 2018/0111226 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, but fails to teach further comprising: contacting the components by uni-or bilateral force introduction into the joining region.
Wang teaches a method of joining first and second components 16, 14 using laser welding that includes contacting the components by unilateral force introduction into a joining region (Fig. 1 & 2, using clamps 54, 58 that engage the top surface of the second component and apply a downward force 60 on the components, Para. 0025-26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Maeda in view of Zimmer, contacting the components with a uni-lateral force introduction into the joining region, as taught by Wang, in order to apply a downward force against the free end of the second component to hold the component in place until the welding joint has solidified (Wang Para. 0025-26).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer, further in view of Tanaka (US 2023/0211437 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, and Maeda further teaches remote laser welding (Para. 0088, the laser is controlled by a galvano scanner, which uses mirrors to control the laser position and motion; hence, the welding laser is a “remote laser”)
Maeda in view of Zimmer fails to teach the laser welding includes optical or tactile seam tracking.
Tanaka teaches a method of laser welding that includes optical seam tracking to detect and control movement of a laser along a desired welding seam (Para. 0005, 0012-13, 0021-0027, using a galvano scanner 211 with optical sensor system 22).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Maeda in view of Zimmer, optical seam tracking as taught by Tanaka, in order to provide a sensor that can detect the position of a seam of the workpiece to ensure the remote laser is positioned correctly along a desired seam of the workpiece components, preventing meander of the welded seam between two components to be welded together (Tanaka Para. 0004-5, 0012-13, 0021-27). Optical seam tracking for a laser welding process is also well-known and common in the art (Tanaka Para. 0002).
Claim 25 & 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer, further in view of Höhn (DE 102016218488 A1, cited in the 09/14/2023 Information Disclosure Statement, see previously provided English Translation).
Regarding claim 25 & 26, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, but fails to teach wherein a thickness of the adhesion layer varies along the joining region; and welding in a region of increased layer thickness.
Höhn teaches a method of joining two components 10 & 20, including generating an adhesion layer 30 (Para. 0053, Fig. 1, “activation layer”) at the joining region with a “cold kinetic coating process” that sprays powder 32 (Para. 0021, 0073), the adhesion layer having a varying thickness (Para. 0033, “the activation layer can thereby have local differences in thickness, differences in porosity and / or roughness differences”); welding in a region of increased layer thickness (the welded joint encompasses the adhesion layer joining region in general, as areas of different thickness, such as increased thickness, would serve as an adaptation to local parameters or welding requirements along the components).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Maeda in view of Zimmer such that the thickness of the adhesion layer varies along the joining region, as taught by Höhn, in order to allow for local adjustments and adaptation of the adhesion layer based on differing coating parameters of the components at different locations along the joining region, and for different requirements of the welding process at different locations (Höhn Para. 0033-34).
Claim 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer, further in view of Steffens (DE 102015004496 A1, cited in the 09/14/2023 Information Disclosure Statement, see previously provided English Translation).
Regarding claim 27, 28 & 29, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, but fails to teach further comprising: securing the second component on the adhesion layer and/or on the joining region additionally by adhesive bonding; bonding in the region of reduced layer thickness (interpreted as the layer thickness of the adhesion layer); and further comprising: applying adhesive before or after welding.
Steffens teaches a method of joining first and second components 12, 14 (“overlapping metallic component parts”, Pg. 3; Pg. 2, “At least one of the components can be made of aluminum, wherein at least one of the components can also be made of steel”) by welding, further comprising securing the second component 12 on the joining region additionally by adhesive bonding 26 (Fig. 2 & 3, “Between the two components 12, 14 is an adhesive 26 been introduced”); further comprising: applying adhesive before or after welding (pg. 2, “an adhesive is introduced before the welding between the components”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Maeda in view of Zimmer an adhesive bonding for securing the second component to the adhesion layer or joining region, the adhesive applied before the welding step, as taught by Steffens, in order to provide a hybrid joining connection that uses adhesive to join the components in addition to the welding, allowing for a shorter welding time and consequently lower risk of distortion of the components due to the welding process (Steffens Pg. 2-3). By incorporating the adhesive of Steffens, the adhesive bonding would apply to the joining region regardless of layer thicknesses, and would consequently encompass regions of decreased and increased relative thickness of the adhesion layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-35 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 33, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious in combination with other claimed limitations, wherein the adhesion layer thickness varies along the joining region and includes wave crests and wave troughs in alternation along the joining region. Claim 34 would be allowable for the same reason as claim 33.
Regarding claim 35, the closest prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious in combination with other claimed limitations, securing of the second component to the adhesion layer and/or joining region additionally with adhesive bonding, wherein the adhesion layer is encapsulated in adhesive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-30 have been fully considered but not persuasive, or are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding arguments towards independent claim 16 in the Remarks filed 04/09/2026, applicant asserts that the rejection under the prior art of record Maeda in view of Zimmer is inappropriate because (1) Zimmer teaches a “fundamentally different joining technique” than Maeda or the claimed invention and teaches an aluminum on aluminum welding method, and (2) Maeda is directed towards a method of joining an “extruded” aluminum component having a “closed cross-section” and not a diecast aluminum component, thus alleging Maeda teaches away from using a diecast aluminum component due to differences between an extruded aluminum and a diecast aluminum. However, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Firstly in regards to point (1), Zimmer was only being referred to for teaching that diecast aluminum components are known in the art in automobile manufacturing methods, which Maeda is directed to. Zimmer was not utilized for their teachings on their method of joining components, as Maeda was already relied upon for disclosing the method of joining dissimilar materials in an automotive manufacturing environment, including joining aluminum to steel with an interstitial “adhesion layer” therebetween (Maeda Para. 0010-13). Zimmer was cited only as an analogous method of joining components together in the field similar to that of Maeda, wherein one of the components is a “diecast aluminum component”, which is common in the field of automotive manufacturing. See Pertinent Prior Art for further examples.
As to point (2), while Maeda refers to “extruded aluminum” as a particular embodiment (Maeda Para. 0007), Maeda also discusses that the aluminum component is “not particularly limited” and can include various other aluminum or aluminum alloy materials (Maeda Para. 0074). Consequently, knowing that diecast aluminum is well-known in automotive manufacturing based on the teaching in Zimmer, one skilled in the art would recognize that diecast aluminum is a potential aluminum material that would be obvious to incorporate into the method of Maeda due to its ubiquitousness in the field, to allow joining of such material to a dissimilar material such as steel. Applicant asserts that Maeda’s mentioning of “extruded aluminum” “specifically teaches away from” using the method with a diecast aluminum component (Remarks Pg. 8-9), however this is unpersuasive. Maeda’s discussion of extruded aluminum is in regards to a particular embodiment, but Maeda does not limit the aluminum to only extruded aluminum, since they state “The aluminum or aluminum alloy material 2 is not particularly limited, and an aluminum alloy material such as 2000 series, 5000 series, 6000 series, and 7000 series is preferably used from the viewpoint of strength when applied to a member used for an automobile or the like…a laser welding in which welding performed by one-sided construction from the steel material 3 side is enabled is used, so that it is possible to use the aluminum or aluminum alloy material without any problem even if it is an extruded material having a closed cross section” (Maeda Para. 0074). Maeda thus refers to extruded aluminum as being an example that would particularly benefit from the joining method they disclose, but explicitly states the aluminum is not limited to such. Applicant’s further assertions that one skilled in the art would not try to use diecast aluminum because of purported “fundamentally different material properties” between diecast aluminum and extruded aluminum is not supported by any references or teachings. It has been held “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”); MPEP 2145(I). Regardless, based on the teachings in Maeda and Zimmer, it would at least have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to try and incorporate diecast aluminum as the aluminum component in the method of Maeda, since diecast aluminum components are common in the field of automotive manufacturing, and the need to join aluminum components and steel components is known from Maeda which teaches their joining technique improves ease of welding together aluminum and steel components.
Consequently, the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection of independent claim 16 is maintained. Likewise, similar arguments would be made in regards to independent claim 30, which has been amended to include the “diecast aluminum material”.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsushima (US 2005/0023258 A1, US 7150797 B2) teaches that aluminum die-cast members are well-known in the field of automobile manufacture due to its weight savings compared to iron parts.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights