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 09/02/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments overcome the previously set-forth objections to the specification and drawings, as well as the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, these objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The following response makes reference to the disclosures of Kaiser (US 2022/0152737 A1), Kumazawa (US 2018/0026252 A1), Tomohiro (JP 2021171800 A), and Yang (US 2018/0214983 A1). For citations of specific elements of these disclosures, please see the associated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 18-20, Applicant argues that the apparatus is implicitly disclosed in the patent application and that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the subject matter involves the apparatus (Page 10 of Remarks 09/02/2026).
As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 18-20 (see below), according to MPEP §2163.03.V, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.” In this case, the method(s) of claims 1-17 specify the desired function of a laser welding apparatus, but the specification provides no structure for performing said function. The only structure provided in the written description is the laser itself, which is not capable of performing the entire method. More specifically, this method necessitates structure which is capable of performing the functions of scanning the laser along trajectories at specified speeds, providing output power, or focusing to a specific spot diameter, each of which the laser alone is not capable of achieving.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-15, and 18-20 over Kaiser, Applicant argues that Kaiser does not teach the new limitation added to claim 1 in the amendment (Page 11 of Remarks 09/02/2026). Thus, a new grounds rejection in light of the amendment has been made for these claims over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa. Please see below 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-15, and 18-20 over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa for further detail. Response to arguments below regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 16-17 over Kumazawa in view of Kaiser are additionally pertinent.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 4, 8, and 16-17 over Kumazawa in view of Kaiser, claim 4 has been canceled and thus its rejection removed from this Office Action. However, the limitations of the canceled claim 4 have been amended into claim 1, prompting the following arguments. Applicant asserts that Kumazawa in view of Kaiser does not teach the limitation an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less.
Applicant traverses the use of their disclosure in a prior art rejection in any context (Page 14 of Remarks 09/02/2026). The limitation above recites the input of heat into a workpiece to be laser welded, not the calculation of said heat input quantity, which would exist within a laser welding process regardless of its calculation. Applicant provides a definition in the form of an equation in the written description. In order to determine whether or not a prior art reference is inputting the heat quantity claimed into a workpiece during a laser welding process, regardless of whether or not said input heat quantity was calculated in the reference, the heat input quantity was calculated using the definition of input heat quantity provided in the written description. The Examiner has not asserted that the calculation of the input heat quantity has been anticipated or is obvious over the prior art, but rather has calculated the input heat quantity that results from disclosed methods, using the disclosed parameters.
Applicant argues that neither Kumazawa nor Kaiser disclose any quantity equivalent to input heat quantity (Page 15-17 of Remarks 09/02/2026). While it is true that neither Kumazawa nor Kaiser disclose a calculation of input heat quantity, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any laser welding process involves an input heat quantity, regardless of whether or not it is being calculated. Further, as discussed above, the limitation recites the input of heat into a workpiece to be laser welded, not the calculation of said heat input quantity. The Examiner has used the definition of input heat quantity from the written description to determine the input heat quantity resulting from the laser processing methods disclosed in Kumazawa and Kaiser, using the parameters disclosed in each reference. This allows for a direct comparison of the claimed maximum heat input into a workpiece during the claimed laser welding process to a maximum heat input into a workpiece during a prior art disclosed laser welding process. It was determined that when the laser welding method using the parameters of the examples and comparative examples shown in Fig. 1 disclosed by Kumazawa is modified to include a second welding pass as taught and motivated by Kaiser, the resultant laser welding process provides a range of input heat quantity which includes the claimed range. See below 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 over Kumazawa in view of Kaiser for further detail.
Applicant argues that the obviousness rejection of claim 4 in the prior office action appears to have been made under Official Notice of facts not in the record (Page 17 of Remarks 09/02/2026). This argument is made in regard to the final paragraph of the excerpt from the previous Office Action on Pages 12-14 of Remarks 09/02/2026. The Examiner has not taken Official Notice of facts not in the record in making this statement. Calculations of the input heat quantity that are resultant from the laser welding method disclosed by Kumazawa are shown in the Annotated Figure 2 of this Office Action (Annotated Figure 3 of the previous Office Action). Calculations are additionally shown in this Annotated Figure for an input heat quantity for the same laser welding method disclosed by Kumazawa, when modified to include a second laser welding pass as taught and motivated by Kaiser (this teaching and motivation is discussed in detail in the excerpt from the previous Office Action on Page 13 of Remarks 09/02/2026). The resulting range of input heat quantity contains the claimed range, as discussed in the excerpt of the previous Office Action on Pages 12-13 of Remarks 09/02/2026. The final statement of the paragraph in question “as taught by Kaiser to obtain the benefit of increasing the strength of the weld” is additionally discussed in the excerpt from the previous Office Action on Page 13 of Remarks 09/02/2026 and is cited to paragraph [0038] of Kaiser. Thus, each fact in this statement has been substantiated by the prior art references and is not relying on Official Notice of facts not in the record.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 over Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 11 over Kaiser in view of Yang, Applicant asserts (Page 18 of Remarks 09/02/2026) that neither Tomohiro in view of Kaiser nor Kaiser in view of Yang disclose, teach, or suggest the limitation an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less which has been included in claim 1 following amendments.
Thus, a new grounds of rejection in light of the amendment has been made for these claims. Please see below 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 over Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa and Yang for further detail. Response (above) to arguments regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 16-17 over Kumazawa in view of Kaiser are additionally pertinent.
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 18-20 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 claims contain 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.
Regarding claims 18-20, each recite the element of “an apparatus” that is capable of performing the laser welding methods recited in claims 1, 2, and 3. However, there is no corresponding structure related to an apparatus in either the written description or the drawings. According to MPEP §2163.03.V, “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 2022/0152737 A1) in view of Kumazawa (US 2018/0026252 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser discloses a laser welding method (“METHOD FOR LASER WELDING” [title]) of a lamination member (“copper/aluminum connection” [Fig. 1, 0074-0075])
comprising a second base material (upper workpiece 1 [0075, Fig. 1]) provided on a first base material (lower workpiece 2 [0075, Fig. 1]; “A first, upper workpiece 1 […] is to be welded onto a second, lower workpiece 2” [0075]),
PNG
media_image1.png
852
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Figs. 2A and 2B disclosed by Kaiser, annotated to show claimed elements of the laser scanning routes and trajectories.
the laser welding method comprising: forming a first scanning route at a first trajectory (welded partial surface region 18a follows trajectory provided by welding path portion 111 [0086, 0092, Figs. 2a and 2b]) by scanning a laser from a first point (left-side end (in Fig. 2a) of the welding portion 111; see Annotated Figure 1) of the lamination member to a second point different from the first point (right-side end (in Fig. 2a) of the welding path portion 111; see Annotated Figure 1), the first point being predetermined;
forming a second scanning route at a second trajectory (welded partial surface region 18b follows trajectory provided by welding path portion 112 [0086, 0092, Figs. 2a and 2b]), at least a portion of which is shared with the first scanning route (the center of the welding path portions are routes with trace width SB [0034], and between the center lines of the routes is their spacing AB [0044]; in one preferred variant, it is discussed that AB ≤ SB such that “adjacently lying welding path portions directly adjoin or overlap one another.” [0044]), by scanning the laser from a third point (right-side end (in Fig. 2a) of the welding path portion 112; see Annotated Figure 1) of the lamination member to a fourth point (left-side end (in Fig. 2a) of the welding path portion 112; see Annotated Figure 1) different from the third point, the third point being predetermined,
and melting the first base material and the second base material in a common region (“melt 5 solidifies at its rear end and forms behind it a welded partial surface region 18a” [0087]) between the first scanning route and the second scanning route (welded partial surface regions 18a and 18b will contain overlap between welding path portion 111 and welding path portion 112 in the case discussed above wherein AB ≤ SB [0044, 0088]; it should be noted that while these welded partial surface regions 18a-18d are illustrated in Figs. 2a and 2b, these figures show the case of AB = SB, indicating no overlap between the routes as discussed in [0044]),
wherein a welding depth (maximum welding-in depth, MT [0055, Fig. 1]) of the first base material is 0.2 mm or more and 0.7 mm or less. Specifically, Kaiser discloses MT ≤ 0.5*D2 [0055] where D2 is the thickness of the first base having a range 0.2 mm ≤ D2 ≤ 0.4 mm. This provides the welding-in depth to be a maximum of 0.2 mm, and the depth can be lower as MT ≤ 0.5*D2, but it must be larger than 0 mm in order to achieve a welded bond.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for welding depth would have been obvious over the range disclosed by Kaiser because the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
From the specification of the instant application, input heat quantity, Q, is defined using the equation Q = (n*W)/(V*S), where W is the output power of the laser, V is the laser scanning speed, S is the application diameter, and n is the number of applications. Kaiser discloses these parameters as follows: 300 W ≤ W ≤ 800 W [0033], V ≥ 400 mm/s [0033], S ≤ 0.12 mm [0024], and n = 2 [0038]. It can be appreciated that while these parameters result in a system that is capable of producing an input heat quantity within the range of 380 J/mm2 to 460 J/mm2, the unbounded nature of the parameters, namely V and S, result in a range of input heat quantity disclosed by this reference that is not only large, but unbounded. Thus, Kaiser does not expressly disclose that an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less.
PNG
media_image2.png
727
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Left: Cropped table of Fig. 1 disclosed by Kumazawa. Right: Calculations of input heat quantity using parameters from the prior art.
Kumazawa teaches a laser welding method (see “Description of Embodiments”) for joining two materials (first component 1 and second component 2 [0053, Figs. 2A-D]) with multiple overlapping scanning routes (“laser beam is moved to the right and left directions several times” [Fig. 3, 0056]; “preferably, welded parts slightly overlap to provide one large welded part 3” [0058]). Kumazawa further teaches several examples and comparative examples (see Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure 2) of this method using ranges of the parameters which define input heat quantity, namely laser output W, laser scanning speed V, and spot diameter S.
In these examples and comparative examples, Kumazawa teaches laser outputs in the range 800 to 3500 W, scanning speeds in the range 100 to 500 mm/s, and two spot diameters, 0.05 and 0.2 mm. Calculations of Q were performed (see Annotated Figure 2) for the combinations of W, V, and S provided in Fig. 1 for examples 1-8 and comparative examples 1-5. Provided the parameters in Fig. 1 disclosed by Kumazawa, the examples and comparative examples implement laser welding processes which provide input heat quantities in the range of 32 to 240 J/mm2. As an example, for “Comparative Example 2” the input heat quantity was calculation as follows:
Q
=
n
W
V
S
=
(
1
)
×
(
1200
W
)
(
100
m
m
/
s
)
×
(
50
μ
m
×
0.001
m
m
/
μ
m
)
=
240
J
/
m
m
2
Kumazawa does not expressly disclose scanning the welding region more than once, so a value of 1 was provided for n for these cases.
Kaiser discloses an unbounded range of the parameters which dictate the heat input quantity applied to a work piece during a laser welding process. Kaiser further discloses a second welding pass (Kaiser: “the method comprises at least two, preferably precisely two, successive welding passes” [0038]). Kumazawa teaches examples and comparative examples for a single welding pass with a narrower range of the parameters which dictate the heat input quantity applied to a work piece during a laser welding process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser welding method disclosed by Kaiser to have the narrower range of parameters taught by Kumazawa which define input heat quantity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because when selecting parameters for a laser welding process from an unbounded range, it is not guaranteed that selected parameters will achieve a desired result, whereas Kumazawa teaches specific combinations of these parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have additionally utilized the second pass disclosed by Kaiser, motivated by the disclosure of Kaiser that “Welding a number of times in the overlapping pass surface regions allows the strength of the welding to be increased” [Kaiser: 0038]. Kaiser additionally discloses that “in the second pass, the workpiece material has previously in each case been able to solidify and cool down completely without any problem, so that the welding-in depths in the two passes are virtually the same” [Kaiser: 0097]. With this information, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the modification without potential for overheating the weld piece and thus, would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Applying the teaching of Kumazawa for a narrower range of the parameters which determine input heat quantity, and using a second welding pass as disclosed by Kaiser would result in a range of input heat quantity of 64 to 480 J/mm2. See Annotated Figure 2.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for input heat quantity would have been obvious over the range taught by Kaiser in view of Kumazawa because the claimed range lies within the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches that the laser welding method is key-hole welding (“the energy of the laser beam is used for […] creating a vapor cavity” [0029]; a vapor cavity defines keyhole welding, per application specification ¶30).
Regarding claim 3, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches that the laser is applied from a fiber laser (“fiber lasers with a wavelength in the infrared (for example with a wavelength of between 1000nm and 1100nm) can be used” [0036]), and a wavelength of the laser is 1.05 μm or more and 1.1 μm or less (the disclosed wavelength range provided above (i.e., between 1000 nm and 1100 nm) is inclusive of the claimed range between 1.05 µm and 1.1 µm).
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for the wavelength of the laser would have been obvious over the range disclosed by Kaiser because the claimed range lies within the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches that a scanning speed (feed rate) of the laser in the range of 400 mm/s or more. Kaiser does not expressly disclose that a scanning speed of the laser is 220 mm/s or more and 260 mm/s or less.
The high scanning speed disclosed by Kaiser is chosen to restrict the welding-in depth of the first base material [0033]. Further, the laser output power and thicknesses of the base materials were selected to be able to achieve the welding-in depth using the higher scanning speed. However, if alternate lasers were used, such as those with lower power outputs or spot diameters, or for thicker workpieces, one of ordinary skill in the art may have selected a lower scanning speed to achieve the preferred welding-in depth.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the scanning speed of the laser to a speed of 220 mm/s or more and 260 mm/s or less to account for varying laser outputs, material thicknesses, or laser spot diameters because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches in a bonded surface of the first base material (welded partial surface region 18a [Fig. 2a and 2b]), a length of a short side in a direction perpendicular to a scanning direction of the laser (direction QR [Fig. 2a and 2b]) is larger than an application diameter of the laser (“trace width SB is much greater than the spot diameter SD” [0089]; where SB defines the length of the short side of the welded partial surface region 18a and SD is the application diameter of the laser).
Regarding claim 7, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) does not expressly teach that in an upper surface of the first base material, an area of a bonded surface of the first base material and the second base material is 2.0 mm2 or more and 3.5 mm2 or less.
Kaiser discloses a dimension on the short side of a welded surface area 19 [0092, Fig. 2b], KAD, where it is preferred KAD ≥ 3* SB [0034], where SB has a maximum value of 0.15 mm [0034]. Further, Kaiser discloses an aspect ratio, providing the long side of the welded surface area 19 a length equal to 1 to 3 times KAD [0050]. This provides a surface area of 19 to be equal to a minimum of 1*KAD2 and a maximum of 3*KAD2. In the preferred embodiment discussed in [0060-0068], the spot diameter is preferred to be 0.025 mm to 0.065 mm [0066] and additionally, it is stated that the trace width can be approximately double the spot diameter [0089], resulting in SB being preferred in the range 0.05 mm to 0.13 mm. A minimum preferred value for KAD, then, is 0.15 mm. The minimum area of the bonded surface area 19 of this preferred embodiment is then = 1*(0.15 mm)2 = 0.0225 mm2. It should be noted, however, that the upper limit of the surface area is unbounded, due to the requirement that KAD ≥ 3* SB [0034]. Therefore, while the preferred embodiment has a welded surface area that can include the range 2.0 mm2 or more and 3.5 mm2 or less, it is a large range, which has an unbounded upper limit.
Though the range of surface area for the bonded surface disclosed by Kaiser is large and not disclosed to be bounded by a maximum value, one of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate that the area of the bonded surface area will be bounded by a maximum value that is dependent upon the size of the work piece to be welded. Further, the size of the bonded surface area needed would be dependent upon additional parameters including the geometry of the part to be welded and any loading intended to be applied to the completed part. One of ordinary skill in the art could assess these parameters for the welding piece and would select an appropriate welding area for the bonding surface that is necessary to achieve the desired weld for a specified part.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the appropriate size of the bonded surface area for a specific work piece to arrive at an area of 2.0 mm2 or more and 3.5 mm2 or less, given its geometry or intended application because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches that the first trajectory and the second trajectory are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined application position shifting amount (cases where the spacing AB is less than, equal to, or more than the trace width, SB, are disclosed [0044-0046]; for the case where AB > SB, it is provided a range up to 4 times SB [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches that the application position shifting amount is larger than 0 and is 0.20 mm or less (as discussed above with regard to claim 14, the spacing AB is disclosed to be up to 4 times SB [0046]; with a maximum disclosed value for SB of 0.15 mm [0034], the spacing, which is larger than zero, has a maximum value of 0.6 mm).
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for the application position shifting amount would have been obvious over the range disclosed by Kaiser because the claimed range lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches a laser welding apparatus (“the laser beam is typically guided through a scanner, preferably comprising a piezo-controlled mirror” [0033]) which implements the laser welding method according to claim 1 (the laser beam 3 and the scanner with the piezo-controlled mirror constitute the apparatus that is used for the method of claim 1, as detailed above).
Regarding claim 19, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches a laser welding apparatus (“the laser beam is typically guided through a scanner, preferably comprising a piezo-controlled mirror” [0033]) which implements the laser welding method according to claim 2 (the laser beam 3 and the scanner with the piezo-controlled mirror constitute the apparatus that is used for the method of claim 2, as detailed above).
Regarding claim 20, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa (with citations directed to Kaiser) teaches a laser welding apparatus (“the laser beam is typically guided through a scanner, preferably comprising a piezo-controlled mirror” [0033]) which implements the laser welding method according to claim 3 (the laser beam 3 and the scanner with the piezo-controlled mirror constitute the apparatus that is used for the method of claim 3, as detailed above).
Claims 1, 8, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumazawa (US 2018/0026252 A1) in view of Kaiser (US 2022/0152737 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumazawa discloses a laser welding method (see “Description of Embodiments”) of a lamination member (“the welded metal component” [0053]) comprising
PNG
media_image3.png
373
690
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Figs. 2A and 3 disclosed by Kumazawa, annotated to show claimed elements of the laser scanning routes and trajectories.
a second base material (second component 2 [0053, Figs. 2A-D]) provided on a first base material (first component 1 [0053, Figs. 2A-D]),
the laser welding method comprising: forming a first scanning route at a first trajectory (trajectory of the laser beam position is shown in Fig. 3 [0056]; see Annotated Figure 3) by scanning a laser from a first point of the lamination member to a second point different from the first point, the first point being predetermined (see Annotated Figure 3 for point locations);
forming a second scanning route at a second trajectory (“laser beam is moved to the right and left directions several times” [Fig. 3, 0056]; see Annotated Figure 3), at least a portion of which is shared with the first scanning route (“preferably, welded parts slightly overlap to provide one large welded part 3” [0058]; Fig. 2A shows the preferred top view of the welded part 3 following the trajectory in Fig. 3, while Fig. 2D shows the “not preferable” configuration with separation between the scanning routes [0058]), by scanning the laser from a third point of the lamination member to a fourth point different from the third point, the third point being predetermined (see Annotated Figure 3 for point locations),
and melting the first base material and the second base material in a common region between the first scanning route and the second scanning route (“preferably, welded parts slightly overlap to provide one large welded part 3” [0058]),
Kumazawa further discloses the thickness of the first base material is 2 mm (plus a 6 µm coating).
Kumazawa does not expressly disclose that a welding depth of the first base material is 0.2 mm or more and 0.7 mm or less.
Kaiser teaches a laser welding method (“LASER WELDING METHOD” [title]) for welding overlapping metal workpieces (upper workpiece 1 and lower workpiece 2 [0075, Fig. 1]). The method includes scanning a laser over the upper workpiece such that the upper and lower workpieces melt together to form a weld (“A first, upper workpiece 1 […] is to be welded onto a second, lower workpiece 2” [0075]). The laser is scanned in a series of routes (welding path portions 111-114 [0086, Figs. 2a and 2b]) with overlap in between to create a unified welded surface region (the welding path portions 111-114 are spaced such that “adjacently lying welding path portions directly adjoin or overlap one another.” [0044]).
Further, Kaiser teaches that a welding depth of the first material (maximum welding-in depth MT [0055, Fig. 1]) is particularly preferably less than or equal to 0.2 times the thickness of the first material (“particularly preferably MT≤0.2*D2” where D2 is the thickness of the first base material, lower workpiece 2 [0055, Fig. 1]).
Applying this teaching of Kaiser to the disclosure of material thickness of Kumazawa results in a welding depth of the first base material that is 0.2 mm or more and 0.7 mm or less. As stated previously, the thickness of the first base material is 2.006 mm (2 mm, plus a 6 µm coating) [0076]. Using the teaching of Kaiser, where the welding-in depth is particularly preferably equal to or less than 0.2 times the thickness of the first base material, this would result in a maximum welding-in depth of 0.4012 mm, and the depth can be lower as MT ≤ 0.2*D2, but it must be larger than 0 mm in order to achieve a welded bond.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for welding depth would have been obvious over the range taught by Kumazawa in view of Kaiser because the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
In this case, while Kumazawa did not disclose a measurement for the welding depth of the first base material, Kaiser taught a proportional welding depth in relation to the thickness of the first base material, which can be applied to the laser welding method disclosed by Kumazawa, as this reference did disclose a thickness of the first base material. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because, as taught by Kaiser, to “obtain strong welding, it is enough just to melt the second workpiece over a small welding-in depth, in particular much less (for example 50% or less or else 30% or less or else 20% or less) than the thickness of the first workpiece and than the thickness of the second workpiece” [0030]. Because Kumazawa did not disclose the welding depth, it is not known whether this modification would need to increase or decrease the depth, but either could be accomplished by adjusting the scanning speed or the power output of the laser, both of which were shown to have a range of operation in this reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in this modification as both deal with comparable laser welding methods and materials.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the welding depth to base material thickness ratio taught by Kaiser to modify the welding depth of Kumazawa with be within the range of 0.2 to 0.7 mm because the teaching and motivation of Kaiser and laser welding method of Kumazawa were known in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the modification.
Kumazawa does not expressly disclose that an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less.
As discussed regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa, Kumazawa discloses examples and comparative examples which have input heat quantity in the range of 32 to 240 J/mm2 (see Kumazawa Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure 2). Kumazawa does not expressly disclose scanning the welding region more than once, i.e., n = 1.
As further discussed regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa, Kaiser teaches that the number of applications of the laser to the surface to be welded is 2 (“the method comprises at least two, preferably precisely two, successive welding passes” [0038]), i.e., n = 2.
Kumazawa discloses a laser welding method, illustrating several examples and comparative examples using said method, wherein the applied input heat quantity during these implementations is in the range of 32 to 240 J/mm2, using a single welding pass. Kaiser teaches a laser welding method, which utilizes a second welding pass. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser welding method disclosed by Kumazawa to include a second welding pass as taught by Kaiser. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do this because “Welding a number of times in the overlapping pass surface regions allows the strength of the welding to be increased” [Kaiser: 0038]. Kaiser additionally teaches that “in the second pass, the workpiece material has previously in each case been able to solidify and cool down completely without any problem, so that the welding-in depths in the two passes are virtually the same” [Kaiser: 0097]. With this information, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the modification without potential for overheating the weld piece and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Applying the teaching of Kaiser for a second welding pass to the laser welding method disclosed by Kumazawa would result in a range of input heat quantity of 64 to 480 J/mm2. See Annotated Figure 2.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for input heat quantity would have been obvious over the range taught by Kumazawa in view of Kaiser because the claimed range lies within the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Kumazawa in view of Kaiser (with citations directed to Kumazawa) teaches that an application diameter of the laser is 0.20 mm or more and 0.21 mm or less (“laser beam exhibiting a spot diameter of 200 µm at the processing point” [0104], Fig. 1 (“Comparative example 4”)]).
Regarding claim 16, Kumazawa in view of Kaiser (with citations directed to Kumazawa) teaches that the first base material comprises copper, and the second base material comprises copper and nickel (“For materials for the first component 1 and the second component 2, metal materials such as titanium, aluminum, nickel, copper, iron, and magnesium may be selected” [0054]; further, “the same effects [of the disclosed methods] can be obtained even in cases where copper materials with nickel-plated surfaces are used […] for either/both of the first component 1 and the second component 2” [0072]).
Regarding claim 17, Kumazawa in view of Kaiser (with citations directed to Kumazawa) teaches that the forming the first scanning route comprises applying the laser at a constant output (“the welding process was conducted at an output of 3500 W” [0104], Fig. 1 (“Comparative example 4”)]).
Claim 1, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohiro (JP 2021171800 A) in view of Kaiser (US 2022/0152737 A1) and Kumazawa (US 2018/0026252 A1).
PNG
media_image4.png
648
689
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4. Figs. 3 and 4 disclosed by Tomohiro, annotated to show claimed elements of laser scanning routes and trajectories.
Regarding claim 1, Tomohiro discloses a laser welding method (“LASER PROCESSING METHOD” [title]) of a lamination member (members to be welded 31 and 32 [0041, Fig. 9]) comprising a second base material (member 31 [0041, Fig. 9]) provided on a first base material (member 32 [0041, Fig. 9]; Fig.9 shows that member 31 is provided onto member 32),
the laser welding method comprising: forming a first scanning route (scanning pattern P1 [0022, Fig. 3]; first scanning route is in a direction shown as left-to-right in Annotated Figure 4) by scanning a laser from a first point (start (left side) of first scanning route; see Annotated Figure 4) of the lamination member to a second point different from the first point (end (right side) of first scanning route; see Annotated Figure 4), the first point being predetermined;
forming a second scanning route (scanning pattern P1 [0022, Fig. 3] in the direction opposite to the first scanning route, i.e., right-to-left; see Annotated Figure 4), at least a portion of which is shared with the first scanning route (second scanning route is a reciprocation of first scanning route; “the scanning pattern P1 is a reciprocating scanning pattern” [0022]), by scanning the laser from a third point (the second point defined above becomes the third point in the second scanning route; see Annotated Figure 4) of the lamination member to a fourth point (the first point defined above becomes the fourth point in the second scanning route; see Annotated Figure 4) different from the third point, the third point being predetermined,
and melting the first base material and the second base material in a common region (welded area W [0020, Fig. 9] is melted during the reciprocating scans [0021]) between the first scanning route and the second scanning route (the first and second scanning routes are a reciprocation and thus, will form the welded area W in the common region),
Tomohiro discloses utilizing a high scanning speed combined with repeated reciprocation of scanning routes [0035] as a method to provide a controlled, slow temperature increase, resulting in a higher quality weld [0032-0037]. A parameter of the high-quality weld includes a desired penetration depth [0033, 0035].
Tomohiro does not expressly disclose wherein a welding depth of the first base material is 0.2 mm or more and 0.7 mm or less.
Kaiser discloses a laser welding method (“LASER WELDING METHOD” [title]) for welding overlapping metal workpieces (upper workpiece 1 and lower workpiece 2 [0075, Fig. 1]). The method includes scanning a laser in a rectilinear pattern over the upper workpiece such that the upper and lower workpieces melt together to form a weld (“A first, upper workpiece 1 […] is to be welded onto a second, lower workpiece 2” [0075]). The laser is scanned in a series of routes (welding path portions 111-114 [0086, Figs. 2a and 2b]) with overlap in between to create a unified welded surface region (the welding path portions 111-114 are spaced such that “adjacently lying welding path portions directly adjoin or overlap one another.” [0044]).
Further, Kaiser teaches that a welding depth (maximum welding-in depth, MT [0055, Fig. 1]) of the first base material is 0.2 mm or more and 0.7 mm or less. Specifically, Kaiser discloses MT ≤ 0.5*D2 [0055] where D2 is the thickness of the first base having a range 0.2 mm ≤ D2 ≤ 0.4 mm. This provides the welding-in depth to be a maximum of 0.2 mm, and the depth can be lower as MT ≤ 0.5*D2, but it must be larger than 0 mm in order to achieve a welded bond.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for welding depth would have been obvious over the range disclosed by Kaiser because the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art.
In this case, Tomohiro discloses a need to achieve a desired welding depth for a high-quality weld and moreover, Kaiser discloses that to “obtain strong welding, it is enough just to melt the second workpiece over a small welding-in depth, in particular much less (for example 50% or less or else 30% or less or else 20% or less) than the thickness of the first workpiece and than the thickness of the second workpiece” [Kaiser: 0030]. Applying the teaching of Kaiser for a welding depth within the range of 0.2 mm to 0.7 mm to the laser welding method disclosed by Tomohiro would provide that the “desired penetration depth” would be within a range that has been disclosed by Kaiser to provide a strong weld. Because no measurement for welding depth was disclosed by Tomohiro, it is unknown whether the depth would be increased or decreased by making this modification using the teaching of Kaiser. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to increase or decrease the weld depth by adjusting the thicknesses of the base materials or the laser output, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
While it may appear that Kaiser teaches away from Tomohiro regarding the avoidance of crossing of the welding paths discussed in [Kaiser: 0037], Kaiser discloses that selection of a high laser scanning speed contributes to keeping the welding depth minimal, as desired [Kaiser: 033]. It should be noted, in this regard, that the scanning speed disclosed by Tomohiro (“2000 mm/s or higher” [0022]) is greater than the highest scanning speed of the preferred embodiment disclosed by Kaiser (1000 mm/s [0068]), which would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to understand that while the laser welding method disclosed by Tomohiro involves scanning over the same route repeatedly, the higher scanning speed allows for control of the welding depth, in order to achieve the welding depth disclosed by Kaiser. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that further laser parameters such as laser power output and spot diameter (for which values are not expressly disclosed by Tomohiro) can additionally be adjusted alongside laser scanning speed to achieve desired welding depths.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the welding depth disclosed by Kaiser to modify the welding depth of Tomohiro with be within the range of 0.2 to 0.7 mm because the teaching and motivation of Kaiser and laser welding method of Tomohiro were known in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the modification.
Tomohiro does not expressly disclose that an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less.
As discussed regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa teaches that an input heat quantity that is input to the first base material by the laser applied on the first base material is 380 J/mm2 or more and 460 J/mm2 or less. See Annotated Figure 2. Specifically, Kumazawa teaches a set of parameters which define the input heat quantity during a laser welding method, and Kaiser teaches a second welding pass during a laser welding method.
Tomohiro discloses a laser welding method but does not expressly disclose the heat quantity (or parameters needed to calculate heat quantity) input into the workpiece during implementation of said method. Kaiser in view of Kumazawa discloses parameters of a laser welding method, including laser output power, laser scanning speed, spot diameter, and number of welding passes resulting in an input heat quantity in the range of 380 to 460 J/mm2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser welding method disclosed by Tomohiro to adopt the parameters taught by Kaiser in view of Kumazawa. Specifically, the laser welding method disclosed by Tomohiro could be implemented by one of ordinary skill in the art by utilizing the parameters taught by Kumazawa and a second welding pass, as taught by Kaiser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a second pass as taught by Kaiser because “Welding a number of times in the overlapping pass surface regions allows the strength of the welding to be increased” [Kaiser: 0038], and to select laser welding parameters from those taught by Kumazawa as, when using these parameters, “ high-quality and high-speed welding can stably be realized for any welding points” [Kumazawa: 0031].
As discussed above regarding achievement of a desired welding depth, Tomohiro discloses a preference of a higher welding speed (preferably 2000 mm/s or higher) to limit the continuous irradiation of a single spot, and thus, to keep the temperature rise in one location slow [0036]. On the other hand, the highest laser scanning speed taught by Kumazawa is 500 mm/s. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the irradiation of a single spot and resulting speed of temperature increase is dependent on not only the laser scanning speed, but the laser output power and spot diameter as well. As such, possible combinations of the parameters, including laser scanning speed, disclosed by Kumazawa would be selected by one of ordinary skill in the art to limit continuous irradiation in a single spot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected to achieve predictable results with this modification, as each reference deals with a laser welding method wherein two materials are joined together using overlapping scanning routes.
Using the teaching of Kaiser in view of Kumazawa for a range of the parameters which determine input heat quantity to modify the laser welding method disclosed by Tomohiro would result in a range of input heat quantity of 64 to 480 J/mm2. See Annotated Figure 2.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for input heat quantity would have been obvious over the range taught by Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa because the claimed range lies within the range disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa (with citations directed to Tomohiro) teaches that the third point is the second point, and the fourth point is the first point (as described above, when the second scanning route is a reciprocation of the first scanning route, the second point becomes the third point and the fourth point becomes the first point; see Annotated Figure 4), and the laser welding method comprises applying the laser while reciprocating between the first point and the second point of the lamination member (“the scanning pattern P1 is a reciprocating scanning pattern” [0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa (with citations directed to Tomohiro) teaches that the applying the laser while reciprocating comprises reciprocating in the first scanning route (“The first example of a scanning pattern […] is a scanning pattern P1 that repeatedly traces a straight line […] the scanning pattern P1 is a reciprocating scanning pattern” [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa (with citations directed to Tomohiro) teaches that “the laser processing apparatus 101 can arbitrarily set welding conditions such as the output value of the laser LA, welding speed, and number of repetitions according to the requirements of the workpieces 31 and 32” [0050]. Tomohiro does not expressly disclose a preferred number of repetitions and more specifically, Tomohiro does not expressly disclose that a number of reciprocation between the first point and the second point is five times or more and seven times or less.
While Tomohiro does not state the number of reciprocations that is needed in order to achieve an optimal welding depth, they do disclose that the “number of repetitions” is an arbitrary value that can be set by the processor [0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art can appreciate that the number of repetitions needed for optimal welding depth is dependent upon several other factors of the laser welding method, such as laser power output, speed, or thicknesses of the workpieces. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the number of reciprocations that is needed, given the parameters discussed above, to achieve the desired welding depth.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the number of reciprocations between the first point and the second point that is necessary for the varying welding parameters, such as laser output and scanning speed, to achieve the desired welding depth because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Tomohiro in view of Kaiser and Kumazawa (with citations directed to Tomohiro) teaches reciprocating between the first point and the second point such that a first trajectory (portion of scanning pattern P2 comprising the first semi-circular arc pattern and first straight line pattern [0023, Fig. 4]; see Annotated Figure 4) drawn by a center of an application range of the laser when scanning the laser from the first point to the second point and a second trajectory (portion of scanning pattern P2 comprising the second semi-circular arc pattern and second straight line pattern [0023, Fig. 4]; see Annotated Figure 4) drawn by a center of an application range of the laser when scanning the laser from the second point to the first point become different trajectories (trajectories created by P2 including the first and second semi-circular arc patterns and first and second straight line patterns create two separate trajectories [0023, Fig. 4]).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 2022/0152737 A1) in view of Kumazawa (US 2018/0026252 A1) and further in view of Yang (US 2018/0214983 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa teaches each of the limitations of claim 1. See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 over Kaiser in view of Kumazawa for further detail.
PNG
media_image5.png
743
695
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5. Fig. 2B disclosed by Kaiser and Fig. 7 disclosed by Yang, annotated to show distance between welding points.
Regarding claim 11, Kaiser discloses the dimension KAD, discussed above which is no less than three times the trace width, SB. In a preferred embodiment, the trace width, SB, is provided a preferred range of 0.05 mm to 0.13 mm [0066, 0089]. Further, the aspect ratio disclosed of 1-3 times KAD [0050] for the long side of the welded surface area 19 brings the length of this edge to a minimum of 1*KAD and a maximum of 3*KAD. For the case of the preferred minimum value of 0.05 mm for the trace width, the minimum requirement of KAD to be three times the trace width, and the minimum aspect ratio of 1, a minimum length of the long edge of the welded area would be 0.15 mm. Due to the trace width surrounding the spot diameter, there is a space between the first and second points and the outer edge of the welded area (see Annotated Figure 5), the dimensions of which are not expressly disclosed to be equal to half of the trace width, as one may discern if the trace width is radially symmetric. Thus, the relationship between the distance between the points and the short side of the welded surface area 19 is undisclosed and the minimum point-to-point distance may actually be smaller than 0.15 mm. Additionally, the requirement that KAD ≥ 3*SB provides an unbounded maximum distance between the first and second scanning points. Thus, while the distance between the first and second scanning points disclosed by Kaiser can contain the claimed range of 2.85 mm to 3.10 mm, it is a large and insufficiently constrained range of distances.
Thus, Kaiser (in view of Kumazawa) does not expressly disclose that a distance between the first point and the second point is 2.85 mm or more and 3.10 mm or less.
Yang teaches a laser welding method (METHOD FOR LASER WELDING [title]) for bonding a second base material (first base aluminum substrate [Fig. 3, 0031]) onto a first base material (second base aluminum substrate [Fig. 3, 0031]). The method involves moving a laser (laser 56 [Figs. 3 and 7, 0035]) along scanning routes on the upper base material to create a keyhole (keyhole 76 [Figs. 3 and 7, 0038]), melting the second base material onto the first. One embodiment (travel path 78’’ [Fig. 7, 0043]) shows a route that involves taking a rectilinear path wherein the laser is scanned in a series of straight-line routes reciprocating in the lateral direction while progressing in the forward direction to create the weld.
Further, Yang teaches a distance between the first point (starting point 88 [Fig. 7, 0042]) and the second point (see Annotated Figure 5) is 2.85 mm or more and 3.10 mm or less (the distance between the first and second points (amplitude 108 [0043, Fig. 7]; see Annotated Figure 5) is disclosed to be “ranging from 0.1 mm to 6.0 mm” [0043]).
According to MPEP 2144.05 §I, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In this case, the claimed range for the distance between the first and second scanning point would have been obvious over the range disclosed by Yang because the claimed range lies within the range disclosed by the prior art.
Kaiser, Kumazawa, and Yang each disclose methods for laser welding of overlapped metallic base materials using a series of laser scanning routes. However, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa teaches a range of distances between the first and second scanning points that is unbounded, while Yang teaches a range of this distance to be 0.1 mm to 6.0 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the teaching of Yang of this narrower range of distances to the laser welding method of Kaiser in view of Kumazawa, limiting the distance between the first and second scanning points. Further, Kaiser in view of Kumazawa and Yang teach comparable laser welding methods, and the distance between the scanning points disclosed by Yang is within the feasible range of distances disclosed by Kaiser. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply the teaching of Yang for a narrower, bounded range of distance between the first and second scanning points to the laser welding method taught by Kaiser in view of Kumazawa, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of the narrower range of distance between the first and second scanning points disclosed by Yang to modify the unbounded range of distances taught by Kaiser in view of Kumazawa to include the range of 2.85 mm to 3.10 mm because the teaching and motivation of Yang and laser welding method of Kaiser in view of Kumazawa were known in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the modification.
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 MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
