Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/309,228

METHOD FOR PRODUCING WELDED ARTICLE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 28, 2023
Examiner
RHUE, ABIGAIL H
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
69 granted / 126 resolved
-15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +44% interview lift
Without
With
+44.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
193
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
66.4%
+26.4% vs TC avg
§102
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 126 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2023, 05/30/2023, and 9/16/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claims 2 and 3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the limitation "comprising at least the outside terminating step or the outer edge intersecting step.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Given that the independent claim 1 recites “the method further comprising at least one of an outside terminating step …, an outer edge intersecting step…, an overlap welding step…, or an end surrounding step,” and it is unclear, in the limitation of claim 2, what happens if the steps of “the outside terminating step or the outer edge intersecting step” are not included in the “at least one of” the steps as recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the “at least the outside terminating step or the outer edge intersecting step,” are understood to be included in the “at least one of” the steps as recited in claim 1. Claim 3 recites the limitation " comprising at least the overlap welding step and the end surrounding step.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Given that the independent claim 1 recites “the method further comprising at least one of an outside terminating step …, an outer edge intersecting step…, an overlap welding step…, or an end surrounding step,” and it is unclear, in the limitation of claim 2, what happens if the steps of “the overlap welding step and the end surrounding step” are not included in the “at least one of” the steps as recited in claim 1. For purposes of examination, the “at least the overlap welding step and the end surrounding step,” are understood to be included in the “at least one of” the steps as recited in claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN1986139A) with citations made to attached machine translations. PNG media_image1.png 346 576 media_image1.png Greyscale Fig. 2 of Wu Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches A method for producing a welded article by welding a plurality of members (1,4) by laser welding or electron beam welding to form a welded portion ([0033] laser melts the joint and welds the battery case 4 and the cover plate 1 into one piece) and produce a welded article having an internal space (Fig. 2 [0006] battery), the method comprising: a periphery welding step of forming the welded portion surrounding the internal space ([0033] laser melts the joint and welds the battery case 4 and the cover plate 1 into one piece), the method further comprising at least one of an outside terminating step of forming an end point portion (3) of the welded portion ([0033] joint) outside of the welded portion ([0033] joint) surrounding the internal space ([0034] welding trajectory 3 gradually deviates from the original welding trajectory 2, so that the end point of the new welding trajectory 3 falls on the battery case 4, where the trajectory 3 is formed outside of the joint, Fig. 2), an outer edge intersecting step of forming the welded portion ([0033] joint) by moving a laser in the laser welding ([0033] laser) or an electron beam in the electron beam welding from an inside to an outside of an outer edge of the plurality of members (Fig. 2 trajectory 3 going towards an outer edge of the case 4 and cover plate 1), an overlap welding step of forming another welded portion overlapping with the end point portion of the welded portion previously formed, or an end surrounding step of forming the end point portion (3) of the welded portion ([0033] joint) in a region surrounded by the welded portion ([0033] joint) partitioning the internal space ([0034] welding trajectory 3 gradually deviates from the original welding trajectory 2, so that the end point of the new welding trajectory 3 falls on the battery case 4, Fig. 2 where the end point portion 3 is in a region on case 4, which is surrounded by the weld joint that partitions the internal space of case 4). Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the method for producing a welded article according to claim 1, comprising at least the outside terminating step ([0034] welding trajectory 3 gradually deviates from the original welding trajectory 2, so that the end point of the new welding trajectory 3 falls on the battery case 4, where the trajectory 3 is formed outside of the joint, Fig. 2, being the outside terminating step) or the outer edge intersecting step (Fig. 2 trajectory 3 going towards an outer edge of the case 4 and cover plate 1, being the outer edge intersecting step). 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. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN1986139A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwatsuki (JP2003290951A) with citations made to attached machine translations. Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the method for producing a welded article according to claim 1, comprising at least the end surrounding step ([0034] welding trajectory 3 gradually deviates from the original welding trajectory 2, so that the end point of the new welding trajectory 3 falls on the battery case 4, Fig. 2 where the end point portion 3 is in a region on case 4, which is surrounded by the weld joint that partitions the internal space of case 4). Wu is silent on comprising at least the overlap welding step. PNG media_image2.png 316 794 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 2C of Iwatsuki Iwatsuki teaches comprising at least the overlap welding step ([0025] additional weld beads 6 and 7 are formed so as to overlap the welding start point A and the welding end point D of the weld bead 5). Wu and Iwatsuki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of welding methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Iwatsuki to have the overlap welding step so that when external pressures are applied the stress is not only concentrated at the start and end of the welding line and disperses the stress across the welded structure (Iwatsuki [0008]). Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the method for producing a welded article according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the welded portion includes straight portions extending linearly and a curved portion formed between the straight portions extending in different directions, and a contained angle between the straight portions on opposite sides of the curved portion is 90 degrees or greater. Iwatsuki teaches wherein the welded portion (1) includes straight portions extending linearly (2, 3, 4) and a curved portion (Annotated Fig. 2) formed between the straight portions extending in different directions ([0024]the additional weld beads in weld bead 1 (the starting end portion 2 and the terminal end portion 4) may be formed at the end portions of the weld bead of the intermediate portion 3 so as to extend laterally from the weld bead), and a contained angle between the straight portions on opposite sides of the curved portion is 90 degrees or greater (Annotated Fig. 2c, the angle shown to be greater than 90 degrees). It would have been obvious to have modified Wu to incorporate the teachings of Iwatsuki to have bent and straight sections of the weld line so that when external pressures are applied the stress is not only concentrated at the start and end of the welding line and disperses the stress across the welded structure (Iwatsuki [0008]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6. 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. /ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/22/2026 /VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12583048
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO CONVERT WELDING-TYPE POWER TO WELDING-TYPE POWER AND RESISTIVE PREHEATING POWER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12557187
INDUCTION HEATING TYPE COOKTOP HAVING IMPROVED USABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12539562
Method for producing a precoated steel sheet and associated sheet
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12539554
FLASH BUTT WELDING MEMBER AND FLASH BUTT WELDING METHOD FOR PROVIDING WHEEL RIM WELD PART WITH EXCELLENT FORMABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12521809
METHODS AND APPARATUS TO SYNERGICALLY CONTROL A WELDING-TYPE OUTPUT DURING A WELDING-TYPE OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+44.0%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 126 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month