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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-8 state “The apparatus of claim 1”. However claim 1 states: “A method for brazing to join”. Please amend accordingly.
Claim 7 Ln 1, please amend to --wherein the removing foreign objects--.
Claim 8 Ln 1, please amend to --wherein the removing foreign objects--.
Claim 9 Ln 3, please amend to --an oxide layer [[of]]on a plurality of side edges--.
Claim 10 Ln 8, please amend to --form [[a]] the joint filler--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 9-11 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 Ln 4 states the limitation "removing an oxide from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler”. It is unclear if this ‘oxide’ is the same as or in addition to the oxide layer stated in Ln 3. It is further unclear if the ‘upper surface and lower surface’ are the same as or in addition to the plurality of side edges stated in Ln 3. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --removing [[an]] the oxide layer from an upper surface and a lower surface of the plurality of side edges of the joint filler--.
Claim 10 Ln 9-10 states the limitation "removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler”. It is unclear if these ‘foreign objects’ are the same as or in addition to the oxide layer stated in Ln 5-6. It is further unclear if the ‘upper surface and lower surface’ are the same as or in addition to the plurality of outer surfaces stated in Ln 6. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --removing the oxide layer from an upper surface and a lower surface of the plurality of outer surfaces of the joint filler--.
Claim 11 Ln 2 states the limitation "has a melt temperature”. It is unclear if this melt temperature is the same as or in addition to the melting point temperature stated in claim 10 Ln 13. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --has [[a]] the melting point temperature--.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuck; Quinlan Yee et al. US 20170197270 A1, hereinafter Schuck, in view of PRENOSIL; Peter et al. US 20240247340 A1, hereinafter Prenosil. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (braze joining). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 1, Shuck discloses (Fig. 1-3) a method for brazing to join a first object to a second object comprising:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal (30) to form a joint filler [0036] (fundamentally, (30) is shaped/cut to form its shape);
placing the joint filler in a joint space between the first object (14) and the second object (16) [0036]; and
heating the joint filler to a melting point temperature for a period of time [0037].
Shuck fails to explicitly state that the cutting is via a laser, and removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Prenosil discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal (“soldering alloys”) using a laser to form a joint filler [0027];
removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler (via ethanol with ultrasonic assistance [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal) for another (generic sheet of braze filler metal), and the results of the substitution (joining a first and second object) would have been predictable. Because both Shuck and Prenosil teach methods of using braze filler metals, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal for the generic sheet of braze filler metal to achieve the predictable result of joining a first and second object.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuck, in view of Prenosil, in further view of Kanko; Jordan et al. US 20170120337 A1, hereinafter Kanko. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (laser cutting). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the laser is a marking laser. Instead, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil generically identifies a laser.
Kanko discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of metal using a laser ([0003] states “Lasers are known to be important tools for processing a wide range of materials. Example processes include … cutting, … Materials can include metals…”);
wherein the laser is a marking laser ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”; the YAG laser is a form of marking laser).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (marking laser) for another (generic laser), and the results of the substitution (cutting a sheet of metal) would have been predictable. Because both the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil and Kanko teach laser cutting of metals, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute marking laser for the generic laser to achieve the predictable result of cutting a sheet of metal.
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the laser is a fiber laser. Instead, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil generically identifies a laser.
Kanko discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of metal using a laser ([0003] states “Lasers are known to be important tools for processing a wide range of materials. Example processes include … cutting, … Materials can include metals…”);
wherein the laser is a fiber laser ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (fiber laser) for another (generic laser), and the results of the substitution (cutting a sheet of metal) would have been predictable. Because both the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil and Kanko teach laser cutting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the fiber laser for the generic laser to achieve the predictable result of cutting a sheet of metal.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the laser is a CO2 laser. Instead, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil generically identifies a laser.
Kanko discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of metal using a laser ([0003] states “Lasers are known to be important tools for processing a wide range of materials. Example processes include … cutting, … Materials can include metals…”);
wherein the laser is a CO2 laser ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (carbon dioxide laser) for another (generic laser), and the results of the substitution (cutting a sheet of metal) would have been predictable. Because both the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil and Kanko teach laser cutting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the carbon dioxide laser for the generic laser to achieve the predictable result of cutting a sheet of metal.
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that the laser is utilized without a cover gas. Instead, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil generically identifies a laser.
Kanko discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of metal using a laser ([0003] states “Lasers are known to be important tools for processing a wide range of materials. Example processes include … cutting, … Materials can include metals…”);
wherein the laser is utilized without a cover gas ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”; [0341, 0388] states that the use of a cover gas is optional).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (laser utilized without a cover gas) for another (generic laser), and the results of the substitution (cutting a sheet of metal) would have been predictable. Because both the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil and Kanko teach laser cutting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the laser utilized without a cover gas for the generic laser to achieve the predictable result of cutting a sheet of metal.
Claims 6-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuck, in view of Prenosil, in further view of XIAO, YONG CN114029573A, hereinafter Xiao. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (laser cutting). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Xiao discloses forming a sheet of braze filler metal using a laser to form a joint filler [0037], wherein an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser ([0014] states that an oxide layer is formed on surfaces/edges due to a reaction with oxygen/environment).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique (forming oxides on surfaces) in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results (a braze filler metal with a surface layer of oxide) would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form oxide layers on the braze filler metal in the device of Shuck as taught by Xiao as the is a known technique amongst similar devices.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing oxide from the upper surface and the lower surface. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Xiao discloses forming a sheet of braze filler metal using a laser to form a joint filler [0037], wherein an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser ([0014] states that an oxide layer is formed on surfaces/edges due to a reaction with oxygen/environment), and
removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing oxide from the upper surface and the lower surface [0014, 0037, 0047] for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion [0011, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Shuck, by removing the oxide layer, as taught by Xiao, for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing a coating from the upper surface and the lower surface. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Xiao discloses forming a sheet of braze filler metal using a laser to form a joint filler [0037], wherein an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser ([0014] states that an oxide layer is formed on surfaces/edges due to a reaction with oxygen/environment), and
removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing a coating (oxide coating) from the upper surface and the lower surface [0014, 0037, 0047] for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion [0011, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Shuck, by removing the oxide coating, as taught by Xiao, for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion.
Regarding claim 10, as far as is determinate, Shuck discloses (Fig. 1-3) a brazed composite object comprising:
a first object (14) including a first joint surface (18);
a second object (16) including a second joint surface (20); and
a joint filler (30) positioned between the first object and the second object and in contact with the first joint surface and the second joint surface;
wherein the brazed composite object is produced by:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal to form a joint filler [0036] (fundamentally, (30) is shaped/cut to form its shape);
placing the joint filler in a joint space between the first object and the second object [0036]; and
heating the joint filler to a melting point temperature for a period of time [0037].
Shuck fails to explicitly state that the cutting is via a laser, and removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Prenosil discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal (“soldering alloys”) using a laser to form a joint filler [0027];
removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler (via ethanol with ultrasonic assistance [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal) for another (generic sheet of braze filler metal), and the results of the substitution (joining a first and second object) would have been predictable. Because both Shuck and Prenosil teach braze filler metal, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal for the generic sheet of braze filler metal to achieve the predictable result of joining a first and second object.
Shuck further fails to explicitly state that the joint filler including an oxide layer positioned on a plurality of outer surfaces thereof.
Xiao discloses forming a sheet of braze filler metal using a laser to form a joint filler [0037], wherein an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser ([0014] states that an oxide layer is formed on surfaces/edges due to a reaction with oxygen/environment), and
removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing an oxide layer from the upper surface and the lower surface [0014, 0037, 0047] for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion [0011, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Shuck, by removing the oxide layer, as taught by Xiao, for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion.
Regarding claim 11, as far as is determinate, Shuck discloses (Fig. 1-3) the joint filler is formed from a metal or metal alloy that has a melt temperature that is less than a melt temperature of materials of both the first object and the second object [0022]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuck, in view of Prenosil, in further view of Kanko, in further view of Xiao. The references is/are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because the references is/are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (laser cutting). MPEP2141.01(a) I.
Regarding claim 9, as far as is determinate, Shuck discloses (Fig. 1-3) a method for brazing to join a first object to a second object comprising:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal (30) to form a joint filler [0036] (fundamentally, (30) is shaped/cut to form its shape);
placing the joint filler in a joint space between the first object (14) and the second object (16) [0036]; and
heating the joint filler to a melting point temperature for a period of time [0037].
Shuck fails to explicitly state that the cutting is via a laser, and removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Prenosil discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of braze filler metal (“soldering alloys”) using a laser to form a joint filler [0027];
removing foreign objects from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler (via ethanol with ultrasonic assistance [0027].
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal) for another (generic sheet of braze filler metal), and the results of the substitution (joining a first and second object) would have been predictable. Because both Shuck and Prenosil teach braze filler metal, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute laser cut/cleaned sheet of braze filler metal for the generic sheet of braze filler metal to achieve the predictable result of joining a first and second object.
Shuck further fails to explicitly state that the laser cutting is via a marking laser without a cover gas.
Kanko discloses a method comprising:
cutting a sheet of metal using a laser ([0003] states “Lasers are known to be important tools for processing a wide range of materials. Example processes include … cutting, … Materials can include metals…”);
wherein the laser is a marking laser ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”; the YAG laser is a form of marking laser);
wherein the laser is utilized without a cover gas ([0496] states that exemplary lasers may comprise the form of “a carbon dioxide laser, a Nd:YAG laser, a fibre laser”; [0341, 0388] states that the use of a cover gas is optional).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (marking laser utilized without a cover gas) for another (generic laser), and the results of the substitution (cutting a sheet of metal) would have been predictable. Because both the modified device of Shuck/Prenosil and Kanko teach laser cutting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute a laser utilized without a cover gas for the generic laser to achieve the predictable result of cutting a sheet of metal
Shuck further fails to explicitly state that the cutting includes an oxide layer of a plurality of side edges; and removing oxide from an upper surface and a lower surface of the joint filler. Instead, Shuck merely states that the presence of oxides may be detrimental to joining [0026-0027].
Xiao discloses forming a sheet of braze filler metal using a laser to form a joint filler [0037], wherein an oxide layer forms on a plurality of side edges of the joint filler after cutting the sheet of braze filler metal using the laser ([0014] states that an oxide layer is formed on surfaces/edges due to a reaction with oxygen/environment), and
removing foreign objects from the upper surface and the lower surface of the joint filler includes removing oxide from the upper surface and the lower surface [0014, 0037, 0047] for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion [0011, 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Shuck, by removing the oxide layer, as taught by Xiao, for the purpose of ensuring proper bonding/adhesion.
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20160228965 A1 discloses a braze foil.
US 20230166356 A1 discloses cutting with a laser, and depositing oxide with laser.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745