DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/14/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 16-30 have been added. Claims 1-15 has been canceled. Overall, claims 16-30 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the region of reduced layer thickness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 is dependent on claim 27, which is dependent on claim 16. No limitations regarding reduced layer thickness was previously recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 2021/0291298 A1).
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”).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Zimmer (US 2004/0021341 A1).
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.
Regarding claim 17, Maeda in view of Zimmer teaches the method according to claim 16, 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, 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, wherein the components 2, 3 are positioned in the joining region over the adhesion layer 1 (Fig. 1, Para. 0054, 0087-88).
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).
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).
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 attached 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 attached 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 20050230361 A1) teaches a method of joining two components at an overlap seam including spot or seam welding with the addition of a shim between the components.
Yamada (US 20170349221 A1) teaches a method of joining two components of different materials with an interstitial metal layer and spot welding with electrodes.
Mori (US 20190255660 A1) teaches a laser welding method including tracing a spiral path along a linear direction.
Maeda (US 2022/0176492 A1) teaches a laser welding method for two different materials including using a low temperature thermal spray coating as an adhesive layer.
Ausilio (US 4847467 A) teaches a laser welding method including using a clamp applying bi-lateral force to the welded components at a joining region.
Contact Information
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 on 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741