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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 5 and 6 were canceled and claims 7-8 were added new. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 8 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hagihara (U.S. Patent No. 8,575,512) and Shimohata (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0109818).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagihara (U.S. Patent No. 8,575,512).
As per claim 1, Hagihara discloses a laser welding joint comprising: a first bead formed along a first path (304; figure 6); and a second bead formed along a second path (303), wherein the second bead extends in a direction at an angle of 90°±10 relative to a longitudinal direction of the first bead (as shown; figure 6), wherein a starting end portion of the second bead is formed so as to overlap with a finishing end region of the first bead, and wherein a starting point of the second path is at a position different from the a finishing point of the first path (see annotated figure 6 below). It should be noted that claim 1 is a device or apparatus claim and not a method claim. Therefore, the order or the sequence of the bead does not limit the claim scope.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagihara (U.S. Patent No. 8,575,512) in view of Umeyama (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0077544).
As per claim 7, Hagihara discloses a method of manufacturing the laser welding joint of claim 1, the method comprising: a first irradiation process in which a laser is irradiated along the second path to form the second bead; and a second irradiation process in which a laser is irradiated along the second path to form the second bead (overlapping second welding section 304 perpendicularly on first welding section 303 irradiated with the laser in advance, i.e., inherently moving the laser sight without irradiation; column 6, lines 2-8). However, this process is different in sequence because the claimed invention forms the first bead in the first irradiation process and the second bead is formed in the second irradiation process. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04). Reversing the temporal order of these two irradiation process does not produce any new, unobvious, or unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hagihara’s sequence of the irradiation process in reverse such that it forms welding section 304 first and then form welding section 303 thereafter, as such a modification is merely a change in the sequence of process absence of new or unexpected results.
Hagihara also does not explicitly teach a movement process in which a laser sight is moved from the finishing point of the first path to the starting point of the second path without laser irradiation.
Umeyama is related prior art in that it also deals with a welding method. Umeyama teaches a movement process in which a laser sight is moved from the finishing point of the first path to the starting point of the second path without laser irradiation (when irradiation position is changed, emission of the laser beam is stopped; paragraph [00128]). Umeyama teaches this minimizes any downtime because it requires almost no time for changing the irradiated position because the movement speed is faster this way and thereby improving the welding speed (paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Hagihara’s method to incorporate Umeyama’s method of moving the laser sight without laser irradiation because as Umeyama teaches, this can improve the welding speed.
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimohata (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2005/0109818).
A laser welding joint comprising: a first bead formed along a first path (12-2; figure 1); and a second bead formed along a second path (12-3), wherein: the second bead extends in a direction at an angle of 0°±10° relative to a longitudinal direction of the first bead (as shown; figure 1); a side portion of the second bead is formed so as to overlap with a finishing end region of the first bead, a starting point of the second path is at a position different from a finishing point of the first path (as shown; figure 1). Shimohata does not explicitly teach wherein the length of the second path is 2 to 3 mm. Shimohata however does teach that the build-up layer has 2 mm in diameter (paragraph [0047]). Shimohata’s welding joint it intended for making a repair for defects (paragraph [0004], [0005]). Therefore, the length of the defect determines the required length of the weld bead. In order to make a repair for a small crack less than 3mm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Shimohata’s length of the welding joint including the second bead to be between 2 to 3mm.
As per claim 4, Shimohata discloses the laser welding joint of claim 3, and further discloses wherein a scanning direction of the second path is a direction toward a side of the finishing point of the first path (as shown; figure 1).
As per claim 8, Shimohata discloses a method of manufacturing the laser welding joint of claim 3, the method comprising: a first irradiation process in which a laser is irradiated along the first path to form the first bead; a movement process in which a laser sight is moved from the finishing point of the first path to the starting point of the second path without laser irradiation; and a second irradiation process in which a laser is irradiated along the second path to form the second bead (build-up portions maintain a predetermined gap, i.e., moving the laser sight without laser irradiation; figure 1; paragraph [0010]).
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 SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights