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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/29/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 1 recites “to form at least two stable laminar layers”. However, the specification only allows for “a stable laminar layer”, as discussed in the specification as originally filed. The specification does not provide support for more than one stable laminar layer.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the reply applicant argues Yang and Gong fail to disclose the amended limitations of claim 1. The amended limitations are from claims 2-3. Yang and Gong were not used to show the limitations of claims 2-3.
In response to applicant's argument that Nie is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, On page 7 of the reply, applicant argues non-analogous art as Nie is not directed toward laser welding. However, the structure of the claims does not indicate the nozzle is specific to welding. Nie is specifically relied upon for the structure of the nozzle and the effect two intakes and two out takes would produce when using a laser beam with shielding gas. Therefore, Nie is considered to be analogous art. Applicant merely states the different fields and only makes conclusory statements without specifically pointing to a reason why the references may not be combined.
In response to applicant's argument that the present application is directed toward laser welding, specifically solving the problem of laser energy attenuation caused by turbulent flow of plasmas and fumes, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It should be noted the present application, as claimed in the independent claims, is directed toward a laser welding nozzle. Nie is also directed toward a nozzle used with a laser beam using a shielding gas.
On pages 7-8 of the reply, applicant does not address to portions of Nie which are cited in the rejection. Instead, applicant addresses an embodiment which is not relied upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “to form at least two stable laminar layers”. However, the specification only allows for “a stable laminar layer”, as discussed in the specification as originally filed. The specification does not provide support for more than one stable laminar layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 11 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) and Izumi (US 2019/0255661).
Gong discloses, regarding claim 1, 11 and 7, 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.
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, wherein the at least two gas intake ports and the at least two gas exhaust ports are configured to independently control a shielding gas flow between each corresponding pair of ports to form at least two stable laminar layers in the laser channel to perform multi-level cleaning.
Nie discloses, regarding claims 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])
Nie discloses using the intake and exhaust posts to create a stable laminar flow. (See Paragraph [0039]) Nie also discloses all the structural limitations of the claims, such as the intakes and corresponding exhausts, with the cross section of the intake being smaller than that of the exhaust as in claim 4. As the structure in Nie is the same as the claimed structure Nie would produce two stable laminar layers in the laser channel and result in multi-level cleaning.
It would have been obvious to adapt Gong in view of Nie to provide the two straightline intakes and exhaust ports and creating the laminar flow layers for creating air shearing to minimize the likelihood of ricochet.
Izumi further discloses a laser nozzle having a pair of inlets and outlets which create a first and second laminar flow, or two different laminar layers in the laser channel. (See Paragraphs [0008] and [0024]) It would have been obvious to adapt Gong in view of Nie and Isumi to provide the at least two gas intake ports and the at least two gas exhaust ports are configured to independently control a shielding gas flow between each corresponding pair of ports to form at least two stable laminar layers in the laser channel to perform multi-level cleaning as this would be an inherent effect of the inlet and outlet placement and sizes as well as for removing dust and preventing defocusing of the laser beam.
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(s) 8 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), Izumi (US 2019/0255661) and 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) 9-11 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), Izumi (US 2019/0255661) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights