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 statements (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2023, 5/26/2023, 5/6/2024 and 4/2/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190224781) hereinafter Yang.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches
A method for laser welding (Abstract; Yang teaches a method of laser welding) two workpieces (12 & 14, metal workpieces; Fig. 6; Yang) along a weld seam (116, resolidified composite workpiece material; Fig. 10; Yang), the method comprising:
arranging a first workpiece (12, metal workpiece; Fig. 6; Yang) and a second workpiece (14, metal workpiece; Fig. 6; Yang) on top of one another (Fig. 6; Yang) so that the first workpiece (12; Yang) and the second workpiece (14; Yang) overlap at least in a region of overlap (Paragraph 55; Yang teaches the laser welding method is carried out by first providing the workpiece stack-up, involving assembling or fitting the first and second metal workpieces together with overlapping flanges or other bonding regions), the first workpiece having a thickness D1 (121, thickness; denoted as D1 in Annotated Fig. 6; Yang) and the second workpiece having a thickness D2 (141, thickness; denoted as D2 in Annotated Fig. 6; Yang),
melting, using a laser beam (24, laser beam; Fig. 6; Yang) guided along the weld seam (116; Yang) and from a side of the first workpiece (Fig. 10; Yang teaches a single weld path 74 extends between a first point 76 and a second point 78, but does not limit these points to any specific location on the top metal workpiece. Accordingly, the examiner considers the laser beam may initially impinge at any location on the top metal workpiece, including the edge of the top metal workpiece), a material of the first workpiece over an entirety of the thickness D1 (121; Fig. 6; Yang) and a material of the second workpiece over only a partial thickness TD (Annotated Fig. 6; Yang) of the thickness D2 (141, Fig. 6; Yang) in the region of overlap (UB; Annotated Fig. 6; Yang),
wherein the laser beam (24; Yang) generates a vapor capillary (72, keyhole; Fig. 6; Yang) that extends to a capillary depth KT (Annotated Fig. 6; Yang) into the first workpiece or into the first workpiece and the second workpiece (Annotated Fig. 6; Yang)
with EST (Annotated Fig. 6; Yang) being a weld depth EST=D1+TD (Annotated Fig. 6; Yang)
PNG
media_image1.png
362
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Yang, annotated
PNG
media_image2.png
261
593
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Yang, annotated
Yang does not explicitly teach each of D1 and D2 being 400 µm or less.
However, Yang teaches thicknesses of first and second workpieces range from 0.4 mm to 4.0 mm (Paragraph 41). MPEP 2144.05 (I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second workpieces having thicknesses of 400 µm or less for the workpieces disclosed in Yang, since workpiece thickness is a known, interchangeable parameter in laser welding processes. Such substitution represents the use of known element within the overlapping thickness range disclosed by Yang, and would have yielded the predictable results of “corrosion protection [and] strength enhancement” (Yang; Paragraph 41), while employing the same laser overlap welding method.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach 0.33*EST ≤ KT ≤ 0.67*EST.
Yang discloses in Paragraph 23 that a molten metal weld pool and a keyhole produced by a laser beam partially penetrate the workpiece stack-up during laser welding. Annotated Fig. 6 discloses keyhole depth KT, and weld depth EST that show the partial penetration. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the relationship exists between the keyhole depth KT, and the weld depth EST, even though Yang does not expressly disclose numerical constants defining a specific range of KT relative to EST.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes both keyhole depth and molten metal weld depth as process parameters that vary with laser welding conditions. The relative relationship between keyhole depth and weld depth directly affects penetration behavior, weld stability, and seam formation. Varying the proportional constants defining the relationship between KT and EST in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 2, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach 0.40*EST ≤ KT ≤ 0.60*EST.
Yang discloses in Paragraph 23 that a molten metal weld pool and a keyhole produced by a laser beam partially penetrate the workpiece stack-up during laser welding. Annotated Fig. 6 discloses keyhole depth KT, and weld depth EST that show the partial penetration. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the relationship exists between the keyhole depth KT, and the weld depth EST, even though Yang does not expressly disclose numerical constants defining a specific range of KT relative to EST.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes both keyhole depth and molten metal weld depth as process parameters that vary with laser welding conditions. The relative relationship between keyhole depth and weld depth directly affects penetration behavior, weld stability, and seam formation. Varying the proportional constants defining the relationship between KT and EST in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 3, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach 0.25*D2 ≤ TD ≤ 0.75*D2.
Yang discloses in Paragraph 23 that a molten metal weld pool and a keyhole produced by a laser beam partially penetrate the workpiece stack-up during laser welding. Annotated Fig. 6 discloses keyhole depth KT, and molten metal weld depth EST that show the partial penetration. Annotated Fig. 6 also discloses a partial depth of the molten metal weld pool TD as a result. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the relationship exists between the partial depth TD, and the thickness of the second metal workpiece D2, even though Yang does not expressly disclose numerical constants defining a specific range of TD relative to D2.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes the depth of the molten metal weld as a process parameter that varies with laser welding conditions. The relative relationship between the molten metal weld depth and the thickness of the second metal workpiece directly affects penetration behavior, weld stability, and seam formation. Varying the proportional constants defining the relationship between TD and D2 in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 4, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches a width KB (keyhole width; denoted as KB in Annotated Fig. 10; Yang) of the vapor capillary (72; Yang) on a surface of the first workpiece (20, top surface; Fig. 6; Yang) facing the laser beam (24; Yang), measured transversely with respect to a running direction (Annotated Fig. 10; Yang) of the weld seam (116; Yang).
Yang does not explicitly teach 0.50 ≤ KT/KB ≤ 2.00.
Yang discloses in Paragraph 13 that the beam spot of the laser beam produces a keyhole that is surrounded by the molten metal weld pool. Annotated Fig. 6 discloses keyhole depth KT, and weld depth EST that show the partial penetration. Annotated Fig. 10 also discloses KB which is the keyhole width as well as the beam spot width at the same time. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the relationship exists between the keyhole depth KT, and the keyhole/beam spot width KB, even though Yang does not expressly disclose range of the ratio between KT and KB.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes both depth and width of the keyhole as process parameters that vary with laser welding conditions. The relative relationship between the depth and width of the keyhole directly affects penetration behavior, weld stability, and seam formation. Varying the ratio of KT and KB in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 5, which is a dependent claim of Claim 4, Yang teaches a focus diameter FDQ of the laser beam transversely with respect to a feed direction of the laser beam (transverse focus diameter; Annotated Fig. 10; Yang) and a focus diameter FDL of the laser beam along the feed direction (longitudinal focus diameter; Annotated Fig. 10; Yang), measured in a plane of the surface of the first workpiece that faces the laser beam (shown in Annotated Fig. 10; Yang).
Yang does not explicitly teach 0.8 ≤ FDQ/FDL ≤ 1.2.
In Paragraph 15, Yang discloses that, during the laser beam (and thus its beam spot) is being advanced along the beam travel pattern, the position of the focal point of the laser beam (52; Fig. 6) relative to the top surface of the workpiece stack-up is oscillated along a dimension oriented transverse to the top surface. The transverse dimension along which the position of the focal point is oscillated is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the laser beam and, accordingly, may oriented normal to a plane of the top surface. Oscillating the focal point position of the laser beam is measured along the longitudinal axis of the laser beam. Annotated Fig. 10 discloses transverse focus diameter FDQ, and longitudinal focus diameter FDL that are impacted by the laser beam advancing along the beam travel pattern while having said focal point oscillation. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the relationship exists between the transverse focus diameter FDQ, and the longitudinal focus diameter FDL, even though Yang does not expressly disclose range of the ratio between FDQ and FDL.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes both transverse and longitudinal focus diameters as process parameters that vary with laser welding conditions. The relative relationship between the transverse and longitudinal focus diameters directly affects weld stability and seam formation. Varying the ratio of FDQ and FDL in order to obtain a desired seam formation and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 6, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach the laser beam has a mean wavelength λ, with 400 nm ≤ λ ≤ 1200 nm.
However, Yang does teach the laser beam is preferably a solid-state laser beam operating with a wavelength in the near-infrared range, commonly considered to be 700 nm to 1400 nm, of the electromagnetic spectrum (Paragraph 49). MPEP 2144.05 (I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a laser beam operating with a wavelength between 400 nm to 1200 nm in order to obtain a desirable energy density of the laser beam and thus achieve precise and controlled weld formation.
Regarding Claim 7, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach the laser beam has a mean laser power P, with 60 W ≤ P ≤ 1200 W.
However, Yang does teach that the power level of the laser beam is preferably maintained at a constant level in the range of 0.5 kilowatts (kW) to 10 kW (Paragraph 63). MPEP 2144.05 (I) states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a laser beam operating with a power between 60 W to 1200 W in order to vaporize the metal workpieces beneath the beam spot of the laser beam to produce a keyhole that is surrounded by the molten metal weld pool (Yang; Paragraph 13).
Regarding Claim 8, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches the laser beam has a focus diameter FD, in a plane of a surface of the first workpiece that faces the laser beam (Annotated Fig. 10; Yang).
Yang does not explicitly teach 10 µm ≤ FD ≤ 100 µm.
Yang teaches in Paragraph 53 that a diameter of the focal point (52; Fig. 6) ranges from 350 µm to 700 µm. In Paragraph 13, it is taught that the term “beam spot” broadly refers to the sectional surface area of the laser beam as projected onto a plane oriented along the top surface of the workpiece stack-up. Annotated Fig. 6 of Yang discloses the beam spot diameter FD, which is the surface area of the laser beam on the top of the workpiece, has a proportional relationship with a diameter of the focal point depending on a focal length (62; Fig. 1). Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses a range of the beam spot diameter FD, even though it is not expressly disclosed with number values.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes the range of the beam spot diameter as a process parameter that vary with laser welding conditions. The size of the laser beam spot directly affects penetration behavior, weld stability, and seam formation. Varying the range of FD in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
PNG
media_image3.png
659
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Yang
Regarding Claim 9, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches a width B (Annotated Fig. 10; Yang) of the melted material (70, molten metal weld pool; Fig. 6; Yang) of the first workpiece (12; Yang) on a surface of the first workpiece (20; Yang) that faces the laser beam (24; Yang), measured transversely with respect to a running direction of the weld seam (shown in Annotated Fig. 10; Yang).
Yang does not explicitly teach 60 µm ≤ B ≤ 600 µm.
Yang teaches in Paragraph 53 that a diameter of the focal point (52; Fig. 6) ranges from 350 µm to 700 µm. In Paragraph 13, Yang further teaches that the term “beam spot” broadly refers to the sectional surface area of the laser beam as projected onto a plane oriented along the top surface of the workpiece stack-up. Annotated Fig. 6 of Yang discloses the beam spot diameter FD, which represents the surface area of the laser beam on the top of the workpiece, has a proportional relationship with a diameter of the focal point depending on a focal length (62; Fig. 1). Furthermore, Paragraph 56 teaches the laser beam (having the diameter FD as discussed above) has a power density sufficient to vaporize the workpiece stack-up directly beneath the beam spot, creating the molten metal weld pool (having a width B as shown in Annotated Fig. 10). Accordingly, Yang discloses the width B of the molten metal weld pool is proportionally related to and dependent upon the size of the beam spot diameter FD, even though Yang does not expressly disclose numerical values for the width B.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes the range of the width of the molten metal weld pool as a process parameter that vary with laser welding conditions. The size of the molten metal weld pool directly affects seam formation and weld stability. Varying the range of B in order to obtain a desired seam formation and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 10, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach D1 ≤ 250 µm and D2 ≤ 250 µm.
However, Yang teaches thicknesses of first and second workpieces range from 0.4 mm to 4.0 mm (Paragraph 41). With respect to the thicknesses of the workpieces, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first and second workpieces having thicknesses of 250 µm or less for the workpieces disclosed in Yang, since workpiece thickness is a known and interchangeable parameter in laser welding processes. Such substitution of thinner workpieces represents the use of known component for another, and would have yielded the predictable results of “corrosion protection [and] strength enhancement” (Yang; Paragraph 41), while employing the same laser overlap welding method.
Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding Claim 11, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach 50 µm ≤ EST ≤ 600 µm.
Annotated Fig. 6 of Yang discloses the keyhole depth KT and molten metal weld depth EST illustrating the partial penetration of the workpiece stack-up, and further discloses a partial penetration depth TD of the molten metal weld pool as a result. Annotated Fig. 6 also discloses that the molten metal weld pool EST corresponds to the sum of the thickness of first workpiece D1 and the partial penetration depth TD into the second workpiece. In Paragraph 41, Yang discloses the thickness of first workpiece D1 ranges from 0.4 mm to 4.0 mm. Accordingly, Yang inherently discloses the molten metal weld depth EST varies as a function of the disclosed range of D1 and the partial penetration depth TD produced by formation of the keyhole having depth KT, even though Yang does not expressly disclose numerical value for EST.
However, the courts have held that where a general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)). In this case, Yang recognizes the range of the depth of the molten metal weld pool as a process parameter that varies with laser welding conditions. The depth of the molten metal weld pool directly affects penetration behavior, seam formation and weld stability. Varying the range of EST in order to obtain a desired penetration range and thus improve weld stability is recognized in the art as a result-effective variable, which would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 12, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches the laser beam is moved at a feed rate v relative to the first workpiece and the second workpiece, with v ≥ 5 m/min (Paragraph 63; Yang teaches the travel speed of the laser beam along the weld path 74 is preferably maintained at a constant speed in the range of 0.8 m/min and 100 m/min).
Regarding Claim 13, which is a dependent claim of Claim 12, Yang teaches the laser beam is deflected by a laser scanner (42, scanning optic laser head; Fig. 1; Yang teaches the laser beam is deflected by the tiltable scanning mirrors in the scanning optic laser head to move the location of the beam spot).
Regarding Claim 17, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches the first workpiece and the second workpiece comprise electrical conductors and/or gas seals (Paragraph 1; Yang teaches steel as material of the metal workpieces. Steel is well-known electrically conductive material, and laser-welded steel overlap joints are commonly used to form continuous, gas-tight joints. Therefore, when two steel workpieces of Yang are welded together, they inherently function as electrical conductors, and gas seals).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190224781) hereinafter Yang, in view of Hoyes et al. (US 6318732) hereinafter Hoyes.
Regarding Claim 14, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang teaches the laser beam (24, laser beam; Fig. 6; Yang) welds the metal sheets (12, 14; Fig. 6; Yang) along the weld seam (116, resolidified composite workpiece material; Fig. 10; Yang).
Yang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first workpiece and the second workpiece are in a form of curved metal sheets that are pressed against one another by way of convexly curved outer sides during the laser welding, such that the metal sheets are oriented in an approximately plane-parallel manner and bear against one another in a contact zone by elastic deformation, wherein the laser beam welds the metal sheets along the weld seam in a region of the contact zone.
However, Hoyes teaches:
wherein the first workpiece (28, first sealing member; Fig. 2; Hoyes) and the second workpiece (30, second sealing member; Fig. 2; Hoyes) are in a form of curved metal sheets (Col. 4 Ln. 8-9; Hoyes teaches the sealing members 28 and 30 are made from springy metal in sheet form) that are pressed against one another by way of convexly curved outer sides during the laser welding, such that the metal sheets are oriented in an approximately plane-parallel manner and bear against one another in a contact zone by elastic deformation (Col. 5 Ln.17-22; Hoyes teaches the members 28 and 30 sealingly engage the bodies with which they seal with at the convex arms 22a, 22b and 24a and 24c. The bodies are clamped against the stop pieces 32 and 34. The pieces 28 and 30 are welded together at 26), wherein the laser beam welds the metal sheets along the weld seam in a region of the contact zone (26, joint; Fig. 2; Hoyes).
Yang and Hoyes are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of joining metal workpieces by welding. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply the teaching of Hoyes regarding elastically pressing curved metal sheets into plane-parallel contact to the laser welding process of Yang. Such modification would have been a predictable and routine design choice in the field of metal workpiece welding, in order to improve weld seam formation and weld stability by reducing gaps between the workpieces and providing a controlled contact zone for laser welding.
PNG
media_image4.png
281
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Hoyes
Regarding Claim 15, which is a dependent claim of Claim 14, Yang and Hoyes teaches the curved (Fig. 2; Hoyes) metal sheets (Abstract; Hoyes teaches the sealing members are made of springy metal) are manufactured from steel (Paragraph 1; Yang teaches the overlapping metal workpieces in the stack-up are steel, aluminum or magnesium workpieces).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20190224781) hereinafter Yang, in view of Bossel (US 5034288).
Regarding Claim 16, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach the first workpiece and the second workpiece are in a form of flexible metal foils.
However, Bossel teaches the first workpiece and the second workpiece are in a form of flexible metal foils (Bossel; Fig. 5 teaches a metallic bipolar plate consisting of sheets. Bossel further discloses the thickness is 0.5 mm in Col. 6 Ln. 63. The examiner interprets said each sheet as a flexible metal foil as it is well-known that the thickness of a metallic foil is typically 0.5 to 6 mm (https://www.bing.com/search?q=metal+sheet+with+0.5+mm+can+be+considered+as+flexible+metal+foil%3F&cvid=37313bd51d5241b488ca130409ab050d&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg8MggIAhDpBxj8VdIBBzE4M2owajGoAgCwAgA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531; accessed 1/22/2026).
Regarding Claim 18, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Yang does not explicitly teach the first workpiece and the second workpiece are bipolar plates of a fuel cell.
However, Bossel teaches the first workpiece and the second workpiece are bipolar plates (4, bipolar plate; Fig. 5; Bossel) of a fuel cell (Abstract; Bossel teaches arrangement of fuel cells, and each stack of fuel cells includes bipolar plates in between to connect the oxygen electrode of the one fuel cell to the fuel electrode of the next following fuel cell).
Yang and Bossel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of joining metal components. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the metallic bipolar sheets taught by Bossel for the metal workpieces of Yang with, and to apply the laser welding method of Yang to those bipolar sheets in order to form a welded bipolar plate structure. Such substitution represents the use of one known metal workpiece for another known metallic sheet, and would have yielded predictable results of controlled weld formation in thin-sheet applications, while joining metallic bipolar sheets, employing the same laser overlap welding method, particularly where controlled penetration is required.
PNG
media_image5.png
125
401
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Bossel
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761