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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (CN 204867811).
Yang discloses, regarding claim 1, A laser welding copper nozzle (it is not clear if the claim requires the nozzle to be made from copper as none of the claimed structure seems to depend on the nozzle being made from copper. The specification recites “copper nozzle” as an identifier and does discuss a reason or advantage for forming the nozzle out of copper. It is not clear if the term “copper” in the preamble should be given patentable weight. However, paragraph [0006] states a copper laser), comprising:
a gas intake port (400) configured to be in communication with a gas intake channel (400) to enable a blowing device to blow a gas to the gas intake port through the gas intake channel during laser welding (See Claim 1); and
a gas exhaust port (end of 30) configured to be in communication with a gas extraction channel (50) to enable a gas suction device to extract the gas from the gas exhaust port through the gas extraction channel during the laser welding (See Claim 2), wherein
an axis of the gas intake port and an axis of the gas exhaust port are in the same straight line (See Fig 1 and claim 9), and a laser channel for allowing laser (10) to pass during the laser welding is formed between the gas intake port and the gas exhaust port. (See Fig 1)
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al (CN 108188596).
Gong discloses, regarding claim 1, A laser welding copper nozzle (laser nozzle is made from copper), comprising:
a gas intake port configured to be in communication with a gas intake channel to enable a blowing device to blow a gas to the gas intake port through the gas intake channel during laser welding (an air inlet 4 is connected to high-pressure compressed air necessarily having an air blowing device, and necessarily being used for connecting to an air inlet channel, so that the air blowing device blows air to the air inlet through the air inlet channel during laser welding); and
a gas exhaust port configured to be in communication with a gas extraction channel (5) to enable a gas suction device to extract the gas from the gas exhaust port through the gas extraction channel during the laser welding (See Paragraphs [0001]-[0029]), wherein
an axis of the gas intake port and an axis of the gas exhaust port are in the same straight line and a laser channel for allowing laser to pass during the laser welding is formed between the gas intake port and the gas exhaust port. (the diameter of a fume exhaust port 5 an air outlet is three times the diameter of the air inlet 4 (the cross-sectional size of the air inlet is less than that of the air outlet); a laser channel for laser to pass through during laser welding is formed between the air inlet and the air outlet; the air inlet and the air outlet are located on either side of an assist station; a hollow cavity is provided, wherein the hollow portion forms the laser channel for laser to pass through during laser welding; the air inlet and the air outlet are provided on the inner side wall of the cavity. The welding means is located at the top and the welding would take place between the inlet and outlet.
Regarding claim 4, Fig 1 shows the intake port being smaller than the exhaust port.
Regarding claim 5, Fig 1 shows the nozzle having a hollow portion forming a laser channel for allowing the laser to pass during welding.
Regarding claim 6, Fig 1 shows the ports being on the interior of the cavity.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al (CN 108188596) in view of Nie et al (US 2017/0274474).
The teachings of Gong have been discussed above. Gong fails to disclose at least two gas intake ports and at least two gas exhaust ports are provided, and each of the gas intake ports corresponds to one of the gas exhaust ports; each of the gas intake ports is configured to be connected to a different gas intake channel; and each gas exhaust port corresponding to one of the gas intake ports is configured to be connected to a different gas extraction channel.
Nie discloses, regarding claims 2-3, 7 two gas intake ports 145A and 145B which correspond to two gas exhaust ports 130A and 130B. Each intake port corresponds to a different input pipe 140A and 140B. Fig 1 shows each gas exhaust port corresponding to one of the gas intake ports is configured to be connected to a different gas extraction channel. As the device removes chips, the exhaust port would be considered a dedusting port as dust would also be removed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the two gas intake ports and two gas exhaust ports for creating the desired air flow, vacuum and a second tunnel to serve as a backup in the event a chip misses the first exhaust. (See Paragraphs [0024]-[0025])
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al (CN 108188596) in view of Kosmowski (US 2009/0314753).
Regarding claim 8, Gong disclose the inlet provides a pressurized air flow, which would be from a blower device. Gong fails to disclose a gas suction device, configured to extract gas from the gas exhaust port.
Kosmowski discloses a welding device having a gas inlet and a gas exhaust port and tube, See Fig 3, with the exhaust port configured to have gas extracted via a vacuum device. (vacuum pump, See Paragraph [0022], [0023]) It would have been obvious to adapt Gong in view of Kosmowski to provide the gas suction device for removing gas and debris from the welding site.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al (CN 108188596) in view of Nie et al (US 2017/0274474) and Kosmowski (US 2009/0314753).
Regarding claim 8, Gong discloses the inlet provides a pressurized air flow, which would be from a blower device, through the gas inlet. Gong fails to disclose a gas suction device, configured to extract gas from the gas exhaust port.
Nie discloses, regarding claims two gas intake ports 145A and 145B which correspond to two gas exhaust ports 130A and 130B, one may be a gas exhaust port while the other is a gas dedusting port. The claims do not recited any structure of the port which make them specific to the names given to the ports. Each intake port corresponds to a different input pipe 140A and 140B. Fig 1 shows each gas exhaust port corresponding to one of the gas intake ports is configured to be connected to a different gas extraction channel. As the device removes chips, the exhaust port would be considered a dedusting port as dust would also be removed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the two gas intake ports and two gas exhaust ports for creating the desired air flow, vacuum and a second tunnel to serve as a backup in the event a chip misses the first exhaust and for removing dust and gas from the device. (See Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) Kosmowski discloses a welding device having a gas inlet and a gas exhaust port and tube, See Fig 3, with the exhaust port configured to have gas extracted via a vacuum device. (vacuum pump, See Paragraph [0022], [0023]) It would have been obvious to adapt Gong in view of Kosmowski to provide the gas suction device for removing gas and debris from the welding site. Regarding claim 10, the suction and inlet ports are shown as being on opposite sides of the device. It would have been obvious to provide the blowing device and suction device being located on the same sides of the welding device, or “auxiliary station”, to increase suction and pressure as the least amount of hosing would provide the greatest amount of air pressure and suction.
Regarding claim 11, Gong discloses the laser welding arranged above the laser channel. Nei and Kosmowski also disclose this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/30/2026