DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under PCT Rule 11.13(b) because Figs. 2-5 contain cross-sections indicated by solid black shading rather than oblique hatching. Corrected drawings are required in which cross-sections are indicated by oblique hatching which does not impede the clear reading of reference signs and leading lines.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 8a and 8b are photographs. Black and white photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 10, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “guideso” in line 8, which should read “guide so.”
Claim 7 recites “located approximately at a same height” in lines 4-5; “a same height” should read “the same height.”
Claim 10 recites “twice of a short edge length” in line 4, which should read “twice a short edge length.”
Claim 14 recites “the laser beam is generated using a 2-in-1 fiber” in line 3; for consistency with the antecedent term established in claim 1 and used earlier in claim 14 itself, “the laser beam” should read “the processing laser beam.”
dropping “processing”, which should read “the processing laser beam is generated using…” to preserve a single antecedent term throughout.
Claim 18 recites “weleded” in line 2, which should read “welded”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “front end faces of the bar-type conductors are located approximately at a same height.” The term “approximately” is a term of degree, and the claim does not provide any standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor does the specification provide any standard, such as a numerical tolerance or range, for measuring the extent of permissible deviation from “a same height.” Accordingly, it is unclear what degree of variation in height between the front and end faces is encompassed by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed height relationship. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is also rejected with the same reason due to its dependency from claim 7.
Claim 8 recites “the end regions of the bar-type conductors are directed approximately vertically upward” and “the front end faces are aligned approximately horizontally.” The term “approximately” is a term of degree, and the claim does not provide any standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor does the specification provide any standard, such as a numerical tolerance or angular range, for measuring the extent of permissible deviation from vertical or horizontal alignment, respectively. Accordingly, it is unclear what degree of variation from a strictly vertical or horizontal orientation is encompassed by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed orientation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a smallest distance d2 between the welding contour and an outer periphery of the common base surface in a direction of the respective long edge” and “a smallest distance d1 between the welding contour and the outer periphery of the common base surface in a direction of the respective short edge.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the respective long edge” and “the respective short edge.” Claim 10 from which claim 11 depends, recites “a long edge length” and “a short edge length,” but does not establish “a long edge” or “a short edge” as previously claimed structural elements. It is therefore unclear whether “the respective long edge” and “the respective short edge” refer to a specific physical edge of the bar-type conductor, or are intended as shorthand referring back to the previously-recited “long edge length” and “short edge length.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi as evidenced by Aota et al. (US 8507118) hereinafter Aota.
Regarding claim 1, Fujiyoshi discloses a method for laser welding bar-type conductors (“laser welding method”; abstract: “A laser welding method for coil wires”; Fig. 1: 25, “coil wires,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to bar-type conductors), the method comprising:
arranging two bar-type conductors (25) next to one another with a partial overlap (Fig. 3; ¶ [0041]: “side surfaces of tip end portions 25a of the two coil wires 25 are butted mutually and welded in the radial direction R,” which the examiner interprets two conductors positioned side-by-side with contacting side surfaces, as corresponding to the claimed partial overlap, as claim 1 does not require any particular degree or type of overlap), and
welding the two bar-type conductors (25) to one another (¶ [0040]: “weld the tip end portions of the two coil wires 25”) by using a processing laser beam (Fig. 3: 40, “laser beam”),
wherein a weld bead (“molten pool”) that connects the two bar-type conductors (25) to one another is formed (¶ [0042]: “The molten pools are formed when the portions irradiated with the laser beam 40 ... and a metallic base material of the coil wires 25 inside the irradiated portions is melted”; ¶ [0041]: “the butted surfaces F are indicated by an area and a welding portion 35 is indicated by a shaded area [as shown in Fig. 4]”; ¶ [0046]: “the welding areas of the tip end portions 25a of the two coil wires 25 can be increased. Consequently, the welding strength of the two coil wires 25 can be enhanced”; the examiner interprets the molten pool/welding portion 35 as corresponding to the claimed weld bead, the region of melted/connecting material joining the two conductors) on a common base surface (annotated Fig. 3: S, “common base surface”; ¶ [0042]: “molten pools are formed along the upper end edge G”; annotated Fig. 3 shows the upper surface S of the two tip end portions 25a where the laser beam traverses in the direction indicated by arrow a, along the upper end edge G, which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the common base surface) of the bar-type conductors (25) that are next to one another (Fig. 3 shows the arrangement), the common base surface (S) being aligned horizontally (Fig. 3 shows horizontal alignment of the surfaces S, formed by the upper end faces of the two tip end portions 25a),
wherein, during the welding of the bar-type conductors (25), the processing laser beam (40) is guided so that a welding contour (Fig. 6: 41, “loop”) of the processing laser beam (40) is placed relative to the bar-type conductors (¶ [0042]: “molten pools are formed ... by scanning the laser beam 40 in a plurality of continuous loop shapes from one welding end portion E1 toward the center ... and further toward the other welding end portion E2”; ¶ [0043]: “Fig. 6 ... showing the plurality of loops 41 which indicates a moving locus of the laser beam irradiated portion”; the examiner interprets each loop 41 of the plurality of continuous loop shapes as corresponding to the claimed welding contour), and an advancing rate v (Fig. 10: V, “laser beam scanning speed”) of the processing laser beam (40) along the welding contour (41) relative to the bar-type conductors (25) is selected such that (¶ [0051]: “a scanning speed of the laser beam is controlled to perform welding so that the molten pool at the welding center portion C comes to have a greater welding depth than other molten pools ... a laser beam scanning speed (laser scanning speed) V is controlled to maximize it at a time t1 just after starting irradiation ... and to reduce at an intermediate time point t2 ... The lower the laser beam scanning speed V, the larger the incoming heat amount per unit area within the loop 41 and the deeper the molten pools,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the claimed selection of advancing rate v such that the weld bead has a particular resulting property).
Regarding claim 1, Fujiyoshi does not explicitly disclose
during the welding of the bar-type conductors, the weld bead has a non-liquid oxide skin inside which liquid bar-type conductor material accumulates,
during the welding of the bar-type conductors, the non-liquid oxide skin is partially broken open in a manner corresponding to the welding contour by the processing laser beam only on an upwardly facing end face of the weld bead, and
during the welding of the bar-type conductors, the non-liquid oxide skin remains undamaged in a surrounding region of the weld bead that extends downward from the upwardly facing end face toward the bar-type conductors and around the entire weld bead.
However, it is well established in the art that during laser welding, a metal oxide layer forms at the surface of a molten weld pool because the specific gravity of the oxide is lower than that of the corresponding liquid metal, causing the oxide to rise to and remain at the pool surface (Aota, col. 11, lns. 62-63: “An aluminum (or copper) oxide layer is formed at the surface of the molten pool ... Since the specific gravity of the oxide layer formed inside the molten pool 21 is smaller than that of the liquid aluminum (liquid copper), the oxide layer comes up to the surface of the molten pool”).
This specific-gravity-driven surface accumulation is a general physical phenomenon of both aluminum and copper oxides during laser welding, and therefore necessarily occurs in the laser welding of the copper coil wires 25 of Fujiyoshi as well. Because the oxide layer forms at the surface of the molten pool while the pool itself remains in a liquid state beneath that surface, the resulting structure necessarily comprises a non-liquid oxide skin with liquid conductor material accumulated inside it, as claimed.
Further, because the processing laser beam of Fujiyoshi is directed onto the upwardly facing surface of the molten pool (Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0042]: “molten pools are formed along the upper end edge G”) while the remainder of the pool surface is not directly irradiated, this surface oxide skin would necessarily be disrupted only at the location of direct laser incidence—corresponding to the claimed “upwardly facing end face”—while remaining intact in the surrounding, non-irradiated regions of the pool, corresponding to the claimed region “extend[ing] downward ... and around the entire weld bead.”
PNG
media_image1.png
521
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Fujiyoshi
PNG
media_image2.png
465
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Fujiyoshi
PNG
media_image3.png
279
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Fujiyoshi
PNG
media_image4.png
537
1393
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Fujiyoshi
PNG
media_image5.png
121
603
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 10 of Fujiyoshi
Regarding claim 5, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding of the bar-type conductors (25) takes place in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (Fujiyoshi does not disclose the use of any shielding gas, inert atmosphere, vacuum or other controlled environment during the laser welding process, which the examiner interprets as teaching that, absent disclosure of any such shielding gas or controlled atmosphere, the welding is necessarily performed in ambient air, which is an oxygen-containing atmosphere, as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, at least in a chronologically second half of the welding of the bar-type conductors (25), the surrounding region, in which the non-liquid oxide skin remains undamaged, extends over at least 3/4 of a height (Hsp) of the weld bead (“molten pool”) (as set forth with respect to the claim 1 rejection, the oxide layer of Fujiyoshi’s molten pool necessarily forms and remains at the surface of the pool due to the specific-gravity-driven mechanism as described in Aota (col. 11, lns. 62-63), and the processing laser beam of Fujiyoshi is directed only onto the upwardly facing surface of the molten pool (¶ [0042]) while the remainder of the pool—including its full height along the sides and toward the bar-type conductors—is not directly irradiated. The disruption of the surface oxide skin is confined to this localized region of direct laser incidence, while the skin remains intact around the entire remaining periphery and height of the bead, which the examiner interprets as teaching that the undamaged region necessarily constitutes a substantial majority of the total bead height, consistent with the claimed at least 3/4 proportion. Further, Fujiyoshi’s disclosed scanning speed changes following an initial transient period—the scanning speed is reduced at the welding center portion C after being higher near the welding end portions E1, E2 (¶¶ [0051]-[0052]; Fig. 10)—which the examiner interprets as teaching that the process reaches a more stable condition by the second half of welding, such that the undamaged region proportion clamed is present at least during this later portion of the welding process).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. That is, the claimed limitation “at least two bar-type conductors which have been welded by the method as claimed in claim 1” describes the process by which the bar-type conductor arrangement of claim 17 is produced. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113. The resulting structure of claim 17 is two bar-type conductors (25) welded to one another, as taught by Fujiyoshi with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, Fujiyoshi anticipates claim 17, since Fujiyoshi discloses all of the structure of the bar-type conductor arrangement of claim 1, as describe in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the bar-type conductors (25), after being welded together, are installed in an electric motor or an electric generator (¶ [0011]: “FIG. 1 is a view showing a state of a rotary electric machine stator which is produced by the laser welding method according to an embodiment, just before inserting coil wires into a stator core”; ¶¶ [0033]-[0034] describe the coil wires 25 as being inserted into a stator core 12 and connected to form three-phase coils (U, V, W) of the rotary electric machine stator, which the examiner interprets as teaching that the bar-type conductors, after being welded together, are installed in an electric motor or electric generator).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi.
Regarding claim 2, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding contour (41, “loop”) of the processing laser beam (40) is placed relative to the bar-type conductors (25) such that, for a smallest distance d (annotated Fig. 6: ds; marking the distance from the outer periphery of the common base surface to the nearest edge of the welding contour) of the welding contour (41) from an outer periphery of the common base surface (annotated Fig. 6) and an extent L (annotated Fig. 6: L11) of the common base surface (annotated Fig. 3: S) along a direction in which the smallest distance d (ds) lies, but does not explicitly disclose that it holds true that: d≥0.15*L.
However, Fujiyoshi discloses that the position of the welding contour relative to the outer periphery of the common base surface (front end faces Sa, Sb) is a recognized, adjustable parameter. Specifically, Fujiyoshi discloses that “the laser beam 40 may have an irradiation initiation position and an irradiation termination position at positions different from the welding ends at both ends of the welding portion 35,” confirming that the distance between the outer periphery and the nearest welding contour is a positionable variable. Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0047]. Fujiyoshi further discloses that positioning a welding contour too close to the outer periphery causes “the molten pool [to] solidif[y] partly due to a temperature drop,” requiring that “the energy of the laser beam is taken for remelting the solidified pool,” which diminishes weld quality. Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0004].
Accordingly, the smallest distance d between the welding contour and the outer periphery of the common base surface, relative to the extent L of the common base surface, is a result-effective variable recognized in Fujiyoshi as affecting weld quality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the smallest distance d relative to the extent L, including selecting d≥0.15*L, through routine experimentation, in order to position the welding contour sufficiently apart from the outer periphery to avoid the temperature-drop and remelting issues associated with positioning the welding contour too close to the outer periphery. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the welding contour (41, “loop”) of the processing laser beam (40) is placed relative to the bar-type conductors (25) such that, for a smallest distance d (ds) of the welding contour (41) from an outer periphery of the common base surface (annotated Fig. 6), but does not explicitly disclose that it holds true that: d ≥ 0.6 mm.
However, as set forth with respect to the claim 2 rejection, Fujiyoshi discloses that the position of the welding contour relative to the outer periphery of the common base surface (front end faces Sa, Sb) is a recognized, adjustable parameter (Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0047]), and that positioning a welding contour too close to the outer periphery causes “the molten pool [to] solidif[y] partly due to a temperature drop,” requiring that “the energy of the laser beam is taken for remelting the solidified pool,” which diminishes weld quality. Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0004].
Accordingly, the smallest distance d between the welding contour and the outer periphery of the common base surface is a result-effective variable recognized in Fujiyoshi as affecting weld quality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the smallest distance d, including selecting d ≥ 0.6 mm, through routine experimentation, in order to position the welding contour sufficiently apart from the outer periphery to avoid the temperature-drop and remelting issues associated with positioning the welding contour too close to the outer periphery. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 11, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 10, wherein a smallest distance d2 (annotated Fig. 6: ds) is between the welding contour (41, “loop”) and an outer periphery of the common base surface (annotated Fig. 6: Sa, Sb) (annotated Fig. 6 shows ds measures a distance between the welding contour and the outer vertical periphery of the common base surface) in a direction of the respective long edge (annotated Fig. 6: L11), and
a smallest distance d1 (annotated Fig. 6: dr) is between the welding contour (41) and the outer periphery of the common base surface (Sa, Sb) in a direction of the respective short edge (R, “radial direction of the rotary electric machine stator”).
Fujiyoshi does not explicitly disclose
a smallest distance d2 is between 20% and 40% of the associated long edge length, and
a smallest distance d1 is between 20% and 40% of twice the short edge length.
However, Fujiyoshi discloses that the position of the welding contour (41) relative to the outer periphery of the common base surface (Sa, Sb) is a recognized, adjustable parameter that affects weld quality, regardless of the particular direction along which that distance is measured. As set forth with respect to the rejections of claims 2 and 3, Fujiyoshi discloses that “the laser beam 40 may have an irradiation initiation position and an irradiation termination position at positions different from the welding ends at both ends of the welding portion 35,” confirming that the distance between the outer periphery and the nearest welding contour is a positional variable (Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0047]), and that positioning a welding contour too close to the outer periphery of the weldable region causes “the molten pool [to] solidif[y] partly due to a temperature drop,” requiring that “the energy of the laser beam is taken for remelting the solidified pool,” which diminishes weld quality. Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0004]. This boundary proximity concern is described generally with respect to the outer periphery of the region to be welded and is not limited to any particular direction. Thus, it applies equally to the distance between the welding contour and the outer periphery as measured in the direction of the long edge d2 and as measured in the direction of the short edge d1.
Accordingly, the smallest distance between the welding contour and the outer periphery of the common base surface, in either the direction of the long edge or the direction of the short edge, is a result-effective variable recognized in Fujiyoshi as affecting weld quality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the smallest distances d1 and d2 relative to the respective edge lengths, including selecting d2 between 20% and 40% of the long edge length and d1 between 20% and 40% of twice the short edge length, through routine experimentation, in order to position the welding contour sufficiently apart from the outer periphery in both directions to avoid the temperature-drop and remelting issues associated with positioning the welding contour too close to the outer periphery. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claims 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Tao et al. (US 20200114469) hereinafter Tao.
Regarding claim 4, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein, for the advancing rate v (V) of the processing laser beam (40) along the welding contour (41) of the processing laser beam (40) relative to the bar-type conductors (25) is a controlled parameter (¶ [0051]), but does not explicitly disclose it holds true that:
v ≤ 1600 mm/s.
However, Tao discloses a method of laser welding (“abstract”), wherein a beam travel speed v is selected within a range that falls within the claimed v ≤ 1600 mm/s (¶ [0043]: “The laser beam 24 may be advanced along the closed-curved weld path 72 at a beam travel speed of at least 8 m/min ... and, more preferably, between 10 m/min and 50 m/min,” which corresponds to approximately 133 mm/s to 833 mm/s, falling within the claimed range of v ≤ 1600 mm/s).
Fujiyoshi and Tao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of metal workpieces using a controlled advancing rate along a welding contour. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select an advancing rate v for Fujiyoshi’s processing laser beam of 1600 mm/s or less, as taught by Tao, because advancing the laser beam at such a rate was recognized in the art as “appreciably faster than the beam travel speeds that are conventionally implemented during laser welding,” such that “the structural integrity of the laser weld joint... is believed to be positively affected.” Tao, ¶ [0043].
Regarding claim 12, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processing laser beam (40) has a laser power P (Fig. 11: P, “laser power”; ¶ [0053]: “FIG. 11 is a view showing a change of laser beam power against a time t”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.5 kW ≤ P ≤ 20 kW, and/or wherein a wavelength of the processing laser beam is between 400 nm and 1200 nm (claim 12 recites the laser power limitation and the wavelength limitation in the alternative (“and/or”); this rejection relies on the laser power limitation).
However, Tao discloses a method of laser welding (abstract), wherein 0.5 kW ≤ P ≤ 20 kW (¶ [0050]: “the laser beam 24 may have a power level … that ranges from 0.5 kW to 20 kW… during advancement along the secondary beam travel pattern 86”).
Fujiyoshi and Tao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for laser welding of two metal workpieces using a controlled laser beam power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a laser power P for Fujiyoshi’s processing laser beam within the range of 0.5 kW to 20 kW, as taught by Tao, because this range was recognized in the art as an effective and workable power level for forming and controlling a molten pool during laser welding of metal workpieces, and selecting a power level from within this known, art-recognized range is no more than the use of a known technique to yield a predictable result.
Regarding claim 13, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the welding contour (41, “loop”) is selected to be linear, circular or elliptical (¶ [0049]: “the loops 41 are formed in an ellipse in the vicinity of the two welding end portions E1 and E2, but the loops 41 are formed in a perfect circle ... in the vicinity of the welding center portion C,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the welding contour is selected to be circular or elliptical).
Fujiyoshi does not explicitly disclose the welding contour is traversed multiple times during the welding of the bar-type conductors, and the welding contour is generated by a scanner optical unit.
However, Tao discloses, in Fig. 2, a method of laser welding (abstract) wherein a welding contour (72, “closed-curved weld path”) is traversed multiple times (¶ [0043]: “ the laser beam 24 is advanced more than once along the closed-curved weld path 72, meaning the laser beam 24 is effectively tracing the same weld path over and over again for a predetermined number of complete passes”) during the welding of the bar-type conductors, and the welding contour (72) is generated by a scanner optical unit (Fig. 1: 42, “scanning optic laser head”) (¶ [0026]: “a remote laser welding apparatus that includes a scanning optic laser head having tiltable mirrors and a z-axis focal lens is employed to conduct the disclosed laser welding method”; ¶ [0038]: “The arrangement of mirrors 46 ... includes a pair of tiltable scanning mirrors 58. Each of the tiltable scanning mirrors 58 is mounted on a galvanometer 60,” which the examiner interprets as teaching a scanner optical unit).
Fujiyoshi and Tao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of metal workpieces using a scanned welding contour. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to traverse Fujiyoshi’s welding contour multiple times using a scanner optical unit, as taught by Tao, in order to realize “a more efficient heat transfer rate… between the laser beam and the workpiece[s],” such that “the resultant laser weld joint is more likely to possess minimal, if any, porosity.” Tao, ¶ [0025]. The use of a scanner optical unit to generate and traverse the welding contour, as taught by Tao, is no more than the use of a known technique to yield a predictable result.
PNG
media_image6.png
537
762
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Tao
PNG
media_image7.png
394
515
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Tao
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Hirao et al. (US 20200112236) hereinafter Hirao.
Regarding claim 7, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the two bar-type conductors (25) are arranged with end regions parallel to one another and lying against one another (Figs. 3 & 6 shows the parallel arrangement; ¶ [0041]: “side surfaces of tip end portions 25a of the two coil wires 25 are butted mutually and welded in the radial direction R,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the end regions of the bar-type conductors are parallel to one another and lying against one another), with the end regions of the bar-type conductors (25) being extensively pressed against one another (¶ [0041]: “two pressing jigs (not shown) are arranged on both sides of two tip end portions 25a in the radial direction R, and the two tip end portions 25a are pressed to each other by the two pressing jigs”), and
wherein the processing laser beam (40) is directed at the front end faces of the bar-type conductors, and thereby the front end faces (annotated Fig. 6: Sa, Sb, “front end faces”) provide the common base surface (S) on which the weld bead (“molten pool”) is formed (¶ [0042]: “molten pools are formed along the upper end edge G of the butted surfaces F by scanning the laser beam 40,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the processing laser beam is directed at the front end faces Sa, Sb of the bar-type conductors such that the front end faces provide the common base surface S on which the weld bead is formed).
Fujiyoshi does not explicitly disclose wherein front end faces of the bar-type conductors are located approximately at a same height in relation to a direction of a longitudinal extent of the end regions of the bar-type conductors.
However, Hirao discloses, in Fig. 3B, a laser welding method (abstract) wherein front end faces (44 & 46, “upper end faces”) of the bar-type conductors (36 & 37, “lead portions”) are located approximately at a same height in relation to a direction of a longitudinal extent of the end regions of the bar-type conductors (36, 37) (¶ [0052]: “An upper end of the abutting face 41 has substantially the same height as the axial heights of the upper end faces 44, 46 of the lead portions 36, 37”; ¶ [0039]: “ The axial direction is a direction along a central axis CL of a central hole of the stator core 12, and a direction in which a power line lead is drawn out in the stator winding is a lead side,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the lead portions 36, 37 extend in the axial direction of the stator core, corresponding to the direction of longitudinal extent of the end regions of the bar-type conductors as claimed; the examiner therefore interprets Hirao as teaching in ¶¶ [0039] & [0052] collectively that the front end faces 44, 46 of two bar-type conductors 36, 37 are located at approximately the same height in relation to the direction of longitudinal extent of the end regions).
Fujiyoshi and Hirao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding of the tip or end portions of coil or conductor wires. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the front end faces of Fujiyoshi’s bar-type conductors at approximately the same height, as taught by Hirao, because aligning two mating surfaces at a common height before joining them is a technique well understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art to promote uniform contact and consistent energy application across a joint, thereby facilitating a more predictable and reliable weld. Combining Fujiyoshi’s laser welding of coil wire tip end portions with Hirao’s teaching of arranging such end faces at approximately the same height would have yielded no more than a predictable result known in the art.
PNG
media_image8.png
195
524
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3B of Hirao
Regarding claim 8, Fujiyoshi in view of Hirao teaches the method (Fujiyoshi: “laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the end regions of the bar-type conductors (Hirao: 36, 37) are directed approximately vertically upward, and the front end faces (Hirao: 44, 46) are aligned approximately horizontally (Hirao, ¶ [0039]: “The axial direction is a direction along a central axis CL of a central hole of the stator core 12... As laser welding is performed with the lead side positioned upward; therefore, in the following, the lead side will be referred to as the upper side,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that the end regions of the bar-type conductors, extending in the axial direction, are directed vertically upward during laser welding, such that the front end faces are aligned horizontally).
Regarding claim 9, Fujiyoshi in view of Hirao teaches the method (Fujiyoshi: “laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 7, wherein the processing laser beam (Fujiyoshi: 40) is incident on the front end faces (Fujiyoshi: Sa, Sb) approximately perpendicularly (Fig. 3 shows the processing laser beam 40 directed along the z direction, perpendicular to the common base surface S formed by the front end faces Sa, Sb as annotated in Fig. 6, which the examiner interprets as teaching that the processing laser beam is incident on the front end faces approximately perpendicularly).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Lenoir et al. (WO 2021009428) hereinafter Lenoir.
Regarding claim 10, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein
each of the bar-type conductors (25), at least close to the common base surface (S) in a respective end region, has a rectangular cross section (Fig. 3; ¶ [0037]: “the coil wires 25 are formed by covering with an insulation film 30 an intermediate part in a lengthwise direction of a conductor element wire 29 which is a rectangular wire having a rectangular cross section,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that each of the bar-type conductors has a rectangular cross section),
for each respective bar-type conductor (25), a long edge length is longer than a short edge length (annotated Fig. 6 shows a long edge length L11 is longer than a short edge L12 of the two tip end positions of coil wires 25), and the cross sections of the two bar-type conductors (25) that are welded to one another are the same (Fujiyoshi discloses the welding of two coil wires 25, each having the same cross sections).
Fujiyoshi does not explicitly disclose the bar-type conductor has a rectangular cross section wherein edge lengths are between 0.2 mm and 10 mm, and a long edge length is twice of a short edge length.
However, Fujiyoshi discloses a construction similar to the claimed invention, wherein the coil wires 25 have a rectangular cross section defined by a long edge and a short edge (Fig. 3; ¶ [0037]).
Further, Lenoir discloses a bar-type conductor (33, “strand”) for a stator winding of a rotating electrical machine, having a generally rectangular cross section (Lenoir (translation), p. 13, ln. 11: “The electrical conductors 22 have strands 33. The strands 33 have a generally rectangular cross section”), wherein a strand may have a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm, and a height of between 1 mm and 4 mm (p. 10, lns. 31-33: “A strand may have a width of between 1 and 5 mm... [and] a height of between 1 and 4 mm”), and wherein a ratio of the width of a strand to its height can be between 1 and 2.5, preferably between 1.2 and 2, or even between 1.4 and 1.8 (p. 10, lns. 35-36: “A ratio of the width of a strand to its height can be between 1 and 2.5, better still between 1.2 and 2, or even between 1.4 and 1.8, being for example 1.56 or 1.66”) but with a different relative edge-length ratio as compared to Fujiyoshi. Lenoir’s disclosed strand with (1-5 mm) and height (1-4 mm) fall within the broader claimed range of 0.2 mm to 10 mm, further evidencing that edge lengths in this range were recognized in the art as suitable for bar-type conductors of this kind.
Fujiyoshi and Lenoir are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser-welded rectangular bar-type conductors. Accordingly, Fujiyoshi and Lenoir collectively demonstrate that the edge lengths of the rectangular cross section and the ratio between the long and short edge, for example the claimed edge lengths and long-to-short edge ratio, would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as a design parameter that could be selected to provide a suitable current carrying cross sectional area while achieving desired conductor performance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select the edge lengths and the long-to-short edge ratio of the rectangular cross section, including edge lengths between 0.2 mm and 10 mm and a long-to-short edge ratio of 2:1, in order to achieve a reduction in eddy current losses in the strands (Lenoir (translation), p. 10, ln. 36: “Such a ratio allows a reduction in losses by [eddy] currents in the strands”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Kangastupa et al. (US 20200306878) hereinafter Kangastupa.
Regarding claim 14, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam (40) is processed, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing laser beam, at least temporarily, has a core portion and a ring portion that annularly surrounds the core portion, and the laser beam is generated using a 2-in-1 fiber having a core fiber diameter KFD, where 11 µm ≤ KFD ≤ 300 µm, and having a ring fiber diameter RFD, where 50 µm ≤ RFD ≤ 1000 µm.
However, Kangastupa discloses, in Fig. 1B, a laser welding apparatus and method (¶ [0001]) wherein the processing laser beam (7, “composite laser beam”), at least temporarily, has a core portion (1, “center beam”) and a ring portion (2, “ring beam”) that annularly surrounds (Fig. 1B) the core portion (1), and
the laser beam (7) is generated using a 2-in-1 fiber (¶ [0060]: 35, “dual core optical fiber”) having a core fiber diameter KFD, where 11 µm ≤ KFD ≤ 300 µm, and having a ring fiber diameter RFD, where 50 µm ≤ RFD ≤ 1000 µm (¶ [0069]: “ the diameter of the central core 51 may be 70 μm, and the inner and outer diameters of the outer core 53 may be 100 μm and 180 μm, respectively,” the 70 um central core diameter falling within the claimed range of 11 um ≤ KFD ≤ 300 um, and the 100 um to 180 um outer core diameters falling within the claimed range of 50 um ≤ RFD ≤ 1000 um).
Fujiyoshi and Kangastupa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding using a controlled laser beam delivered via an optical fiber. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to generate Fujiyoshi’s processing laser beam as a shaped laser beam having a core portion and an annularly surrounding ring portion via a dual core fiber having a core fiber diameter and ring fiber diameter within the claimed ranges, as taught by Kangastupa, because “application of hybrid welding by circular and annular laser beams ... is at least 20% deeper than that of pure keyhole welding using the same processing speed.” Kangastupa, ¶ [0059].
PNG
media_image9.png
237
558
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B of Kangastupa
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Kangastupa et al. (US 20200306878) hereinafter Kangastupa, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20180243861) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 15, Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa teaches the method (Fujiyoshi: “laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 14, wherein a laser power (Fujiyoshi, Figure 11: P, “laser beam power”) in the core portion (Kangastupa: 1, “center beam”) is controlled to gradually increase from the start of irradiating the laser beam to become maximum at an intermediate irradiation time point t4 and to gradually lower toward the termination of irradiation (Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0053]; Fig. 11) during the welding of the bar-type conductors (Fujiyoshi: 25).
Fujiyoshi and Kangastupa does not explicitly teach
wherein a power component Pkern of a laser power in the core portion is smaller during a chronologically first phase of the welding of the bar-type conductors than during a main phase of the welding of the bar-type conductors,
wherein the power component Pkern of the laser power in the core portion increases continuously during the first phase.
However, Wang teaches, in Fig. 13, a method of laser welding (abstract)
wherein a power component Pkern of a laser power (210, “power level”) in the core portion (24, “laser beam”; the examiner notes the core portion is established by Kangastupa as applied in claim 14; Wang is relied upon for its teaching of phased power control, applied to the core beam power in the proposed combination) is smaller during a chronologically first phase (114, “initial stage”) of the welding of the bar-type conductors than during a main phase (116, “intermediate stage”) of the welding of the bar-type conductors (Fig. 13 shows the power level 210 of the first phase is smaller than the power level of the main phase),
wherein the power component Pkern of the laser power (210) in the core portion (24) increases continuously during the first phase (114) (Fig. 13 shows the continuously increasing power level of the first phase).
Fujiyoshi, Kangastupa and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding methods for metal pieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the core-portion laser power control taught by Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa such that the power component Pkern of the laser power in the core portion is smaller during a chronologically first phase than during a main phase and increases continuously during the first phase, as taught by Wang, in order to achieve a process by which “excessive fusion of the aluminum alloy workpieces is prevented at the beginning and/or ending portions of the weld path” (Wang, ¶ [0034]), thereby avoiding formation of a bulbous weld anomaly at the start of the weld and improving the mechanical integrity of the weld joint between the bar-type conductors.
PNG
media_image10.png
125
623
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 of Fujiyoshi
PNG
media_image11.png
261
733
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Wang
Regarding claim 15, Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa and Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the first phase has a duration between 1 ms and 30 ms.
However, Wang discloses that the duration of the first phase (114) relative to the main phase (116) is a recognized, adjustable parameter. Specifically, Wang discloses that “each of the initial and final stages 114, 118 of laser beam advancement along the weld path 108 usually lasts anywhere from 0.3 seconds to 0.7 seconds” (¶ [0051]), confirming that the duration of the first phase is a positionable variable selected across a range. Wang further discloses that excess line energy occurring during the first phase, attributable to the disparity in response time between initiating laser beam transmission and accelerating the travel speed of the laser beam, “creates a cradle or pear-shaped bulbous anomaly within the laser weld joint at each of the beginning and ending portions of the weld path.” Wang, ¶ [0008].
Accordingly, the duration of the first phase is a result-effective variable recognized in Wang as affecting weld quality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the duration of the first phase, including selecting a duration between 1 ms and 30 ms, through routine experimentation, in order to limit the first phase to a duration sufficiently short to minimize exposure to the excess laser energy input caused by the response-time disparity identified by Wang, particularly in view of the comparatively smaller scale and shorter overall weld time associated with welding bar-type conductors as compared to the workpieces welded by Wang. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa teaches the method (Fujiyoshi: “laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 14, where in a laser power (Fujiyoshi, Figure 11: P, “laser beam power”) in the core portion (Kangastupa: 1, “center beam”) is controlled to gradually increase from the start of irradiating the laser beam to become maximum at an intermediate irradiation time point t4 and to gradually lower toward the termination of irradiation (Fujiyoshi, ¶ [0053]; Fig. 11) during the welding of the bar-type conductors (Fujiyoshi: 25).
Fujiyoshi and Kangastupa does not explicitly teach
wherein a power component Pkern of a laser power in the core portion is smaller during a chronologically last phase of the welding of the bar-type conductors than during a main phase of the welding of the bar-type conductors,
wherein the power component Pkern of the laser power in the core portion decreases continuously during the last phase.
However, Wang teaches, in Fig. 13, a method of laser welding (abstract)
wherein a power component Pkern of a laser power (210, “power level”) in the core portion (24, “laser beam”; the examiner notes the core portion is established by Kangastupa as applied in claim 14; Wang is relied upon for its teaching of phased power control, applied to the core beam power in the proposed combination) is smaller during a chronologically last phase (118, “final stage”) of the welding of the bar-type conductors than during a main phase (116, “intermediate stage”) of the welding of the bar-type conductors (Fig. 13 shows the power level 210 of the last phase is smaller than the power level of the main phase),
wherein the power component Pkern of the laser power (210) in the core portion (24) decreases continuously during the last phase (118) (Fig. 13 shows the continuously decreasing power level of the last phase).
Fujiyoshi, Kangastupa and Wang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser welding methods for metal pieces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the core-portion laser power control taught by Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa such that the power component Pkern of the laser power in the core portion is smaller during a chronologically last phase than during a main phase and decreases continuously during the last phase, as taught by Wang, in order to achieve a process by which “excessive fusion of the aluminum alloy workpieces is prevented at the beginning and/or ending portions of the weld path” (Wang, ¶ [0034]), thereby avoiding formation of a bulbous weld anomaly at the end of the weld and improving the mechanical integrity of the weld joint between the bar-type conductors.
Regarding claim 16, Fujiyoshi in view of Kangastupa and Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the last phase has a duration between 1 ms and 30 ms.
However, Wang discloses that the duration of the last phase (118) relative to the main phase (116) is a recognized, adjustable parameter. Specifically, Wang discloses that “each of the initial and final stages 114, 118 of laser beam advancement along the weld path 108 usually lasts anywhere from 0.3 seconds to 0.7 seconds” (¶ [0051]), confirming that the duration of the last phase is a positionable variable selected across a range. Wang further discloses that excess line energy occurring during the last phase, attributable to the disparity in response time between initiating laser beam transmission and accelerating the travel speed of the laser beam, “creates a cradle or pear-shaped bulbous anomaly within the laser weld joint at each of the beginning and ending portions of the weld path.” Wang, ¶ [0008].
Accordingly, the duration of the last phase is a result-effective variable recognized in Wang as affecting weld quality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the duration of the last phase, including selecting a duration between 1 ms and 30 ms, through routine experimentation, in order to limit the last phase to a duration sufficiently short to minimize exposure to the excess laser energy input caused by the response-time disparity identified by Wang, particularly in view of the comparatively smaller scale and shorter overall weld time associated with welding bar-type conductors as compared to the workpieces welded by Wang. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyoshi et al. (US 20200083787) hereinafter Fujiyoshi, in view of Wang (US 8448328) hereinafter Wang `328.
Regarding claim 19, Fujiyoshi discloses the method (“laser welding method”) as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the bar-type conductors comprise an aluminum-containing bar-type conductor material with an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight.
However, Wang `328 discloses conductor bars for a rotor of an induction motor (abstract), wherein the bar-type conductors (“conductor bars”; abstract: “an aluminum-carbon nanotube composite conductor bar”) comprise an aluminum-containing bar-type conductor material with an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight (col. 2, lns. 53-55: “The method includes mixing aluminum and carbon nanotubes; forming the mixture into an aluminum-carbon nanotube composite conductor bar”; col. 3, lns. 16-17: “An aluminum composite material is used to make the squirrel cage for the rotor application”; col. 3, lns. 22-23: “the cage bars are made of an aluminum matrix/carbon nanotube (CNT) composite”; col. 4, lns. 42-43: “The Al-CNT composite typically can contain about 0.1 wt. % to about 5 wt. % carbon nanotubes,” which means an aluminum content is greater than 75% by weight).
Fujiyoshi and Wang `328 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of bar-type conductors for an electric motor or generator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the copper bar-type conductor material of Fujiyoshi with an aluminum-containing bar-type conductor material having an aluminum content of at least 75% by weight, as taught by Wang `328, because “aluminum is much lighter and less expensive than copper” (Wang `328, col. 2, lns. 12-13), and such a substitution of one known, suitable conductor material for another would have yielded no more than a predictable result to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Speker et al. (US 20220118548), Bocksrocker et al. (US 20230068733), Hofmann et al. (US 20200398378), Tang et al. (JP 2021044883), Fujiwara et al. (US 20200398378), Bocksrocker et al. (US 20210402518), Sigler et al. (US 20190358733), Emel et al. (CN 109845073), Hein et al. (US 20190326801), Tatsumi et al. (US 20180257160), Sigler et al. (US 20170297138), Masugi et al. (JP 2014238387), Ushida (JP 2014183623), Yagi (JP 2013016366), Speckbacher (DE 19959902), Yamamoto (JP 01062291).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights