DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023, 02/13/2024, 04/10/2024, 04/18/2024, and 03/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “10b.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words, thus not within the range of 50-150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes a drawing figure. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The melt” (Pg. 3, paragraph 0007, line 31). Should read “the weld.”
“The melt” (Pg. 4, paragraph 0007, line 8). Should read “the weld.”
“The melt” (Pg. 4, paragraph 0008, line 19). Should read “the weld.”
“The melt” (Pg. 6, paragraph 0013, line 5). Should read “the weld.”
“The material 4” (Pg. 7, paragraph 0027, line 28). Should read “the surrounding material 4.”
“A curve 5” (Pg. 7, paragraph 0027, line 29). Should read “a curvature 5.”
“The end face 9” (Pg. 8, paragraph 0029, line 11). Should read “the end 9 face.”
“The melt” (Pg. 9, paragraph 0035, line 9). Should read “the weld.”
“The melt” (Pg. 9, paragraph 0036, line 18). Should read “the weld.”
“B width” (Pg. 11, List of Reference Numerals). Should read “B width direction.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The side facing away from the laser beam” should read “a side facing away from the laser beam.”
"An anti-corrosion coating" in line 18 should read “the anti-corrosion coating.”
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 11 and 22 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 22 recites the term “bead-like” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bead-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The shape of the weld seam has been rendered indefinite due to the term “bead-like.” Examiner note: the weld seam will be interpreted as being a surface that is bulged or convex, and equivalents, as stated in the specification “a typically bulging weld seam is provided on the side facing away from the side to which the laser is applied. A weld seam having a convex surface is thus provided that sufficiently fills the gap” (Pg. 6, paragraph 0017, lines 24-26).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 11, 12, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner et al. (D.E. 10261507), hereinafter Elsner, in view of Walter et al. (D.E. 102010029477), hereinafter Walter, and Beyer et al. (U.S. 5821493), hereinafter Beyer, and Stephane et al. (C.N. 102971166), hereinafter Stephane.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Elsner)
PNG
media_image2.png
799
683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Elsner)
Regarding claim 11, Elsner discloses a method for laser welding two joining partners made of metal for automotive applications (“The invention thus provides a method for joining two steel sheets, at least one of which has a coating with a lower melting point than the steel sheet material, by means of a laser weld, wherein the steel sheets are arranged abutting each other” [0008]; “Preferably, applications of the component according to the invention, comprising two steel sheets joined by a laser weld, consist in the component being a roof part, a floor part, a door part, a sill or column part, a window cutout part or a part of the outer skin of a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle” [0025]) held together in a joint (Annotated Fig. 1, “butt joint” [0034]), comprising:
holding a first joining partner (Annotated Fig. 1, “upper second steel sheet 3” [0044]) and a second joining partner (Annotated Fig. 1, “first steel sheet 2” [0044]) together ("In the embodiment discussed here, the butt edge 9 of the second steel sheet 3 is arranged in such a way that it essentially rests on the radius insert E of the curvature 6 as seen from the main part 4 of the first steel sheet 2 and, even more precisely, is pressed into a fixed position there by means of the clamp 11” [0040]) for laser welding (“the method for joining two steel sheets by means of a laser weld” [0016]), wherein the first joining partner includes a joining flange (Annotated Fig. 1, “Joining Flange”) having an end (Annotated Fig. 1, “butt edge 9” [0036]), and the second joining partner includes a joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “Joining Zone”) on a flat side thereof (“Annotated Fig. 1, “Joining Zone”),
wherein one side of the joining flange of the first joining partner is held contacting the joining zone of the second joining partner (Annotated Fig. 1, “wherein the sheet edge or the joint 9 of the upper second steel sheet 3 rests on the first steel sheet 2 in the radius area, i.e. along the curvature 6, and/or in particular in the vicinity of the radius insertion point E” [0044]),
and wherein, in a region of the joint of the two joining partners, a gap (Annotated Fig. 1, “degassing channel 15” [0044]) is provided between the two joining partners that widens in a direction facing away from a side to which a laser beam (Annotated Fig. 1, “laser beam L” [0054]) is applied, directing the laser beam in a fillet (Annotated Fig. 1, “fillet 13” [0037]) formed by the joining zone and the joining flange at an angle α (Annotated Fig. 1, “α”) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “Plane of the Joining Zone”) to form a weld seam (Annotated Fig. 1, “weld seam N” [0036]), such that a gap base (Annotated Fig. 2, “Gap Base”) which spaces apart opposing surfaces of the joining partners is formed in the gap as part of the weld seam (Annotated Figs. 1 and 2, “After the molten material in the melting wedge 12 has solidified, the first steel sheet 2 and the second steel sheet 3 are firmly welded together and a weld seam N is formed”), and due to formation of the gap base, a gap width (Annotated Fig. 2, “Gap Width”) of the gap located between the joining partners on the side facing away from the laser beam.
PNG
media_image3.png
269
354
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Walter)
Elsner does not expressly disclose an angle α of 1° to 45°. However, Elsner teaches directing the laser beam (Annotated Fig. 1, “laser beam L”) in a fillet (Annotated Fig. 1, “fillet 13” [0037]) formed by the joining zone and the joining flange at an angle α (Annotated Fig. 1, “α”) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “Plane of the Joining Zone”).
Walter is directed to a method for laser welding two joining partners made of metal held together in a joint. Walter discloses an angle α of -45° to 45° (Walter’s Fig. 4, “beam angle/lateral angle 6” [0023]) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4 “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible. Angles in the range of plus or minus 45 degrees are preferred” [0025]; “a lateral angle 6 away from the protruding sheet can be deliberately set, as shown in section in Fig. 4” [0046]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Walter shows the overlap with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (1° to 45°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4, “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible. Angles in the range of plus or minus 45 degrees are preferred” [0025]) of the prior art is (-45° to 45°) which overlaps with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (1° to 45°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
PNG
media_image4.png
203
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 7g (Beyer)
Although not evident from Annotated Figs. 1 and 2, Elsner further teaches a portion of the weld seam “weld seam N” extending into the gap “degassing channel 15,” due to the first joining partner “upper second steel sheet 3” and second joining partner “first steel sheet 2” being separate sheets being joined together by means of laser weld seam (“In this way, the weld seam N is formed as a fillet weld 13 along the butt edge 9 of the second steel sheet 3” [0037]; “wherein furthermore the fillet weld between the butt edge and the first steel sheet runs in the course of the curvature or at least near the end of the curvature towards the main part “ [0052]; “The problem of degassing is solved in the inventive method by laser welding a fillet weld 13, wherein the sheet edge or the joint 9 of the upper second steel sheet 3 rests on the first steel sheet 2 in the radius area, i.e. along the curvature 6, and/or in particular in the vicinity of the radius insertion point E. This results in a linear contact along the edge flange 5, so that the zinc vapor can escape unhindered into the cavity formed by the degassing channel 15, as indicated by arrows D” [0044]; “In a further development of the inventive method for joining two steel sheets by means of a laser weld seam” [0010]).
Elsner does not expressly disclose whereby the weld seam extends into the gap.
Beyer is directed to a method for laser welding two joining partners made of metal held together in a joint, in the field of autobody [Col. 6, lines 59-61]. Beyer discloses whereby the weld seam (Fig. 7g, “seam cross section 30” [Col. 7, lines 28-39]) extends into the gap (Fig. 7g, “gap 32” [Col. 7, lines 28-39]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Beyer to have the weld seam extend into the gap. Doing so allows for the zinc vapor from the weld seam to escape and evaporate without damaging the weld seam, as recognized by Beyer (“It is commonly known to arrange the workpieces with a defined gap between them. The gap gives the zinc the possibility to evaporate, without impairing the weld seam” [Col. 7, lines 2-4]; “In FIG. 7g the workpiece 11 is at a somewhat greater distance from the workpiece 10 than in FIG. 7f. In this way a gap 32 is formed, which allows for an even better escape of the zinc vapor” [Col. 7, lines 31-34]).
PNG
media_image5.png
208
463
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (Stephane)
Elsner does not expressly disclose the gap width has a non-zero extension which is wide enough for applying an anti-corrosion coating to the gap base, and after welding the joining partners, applying an anti-corrosion coating to the joining partners at least in a region of the gap base.
Stephane is directed to an anti-corrosion coating covering a gap between two joining partners made of metal, in relation to the automotive industry (“In relation to sheet metal components used in the automotive industry, it is also necessary to consider that these sheet metal components typically have a coating layer manufactured during the cathodic immersion (KTL) process” [0007]). Stephane discloses the gap width (Annotated Fig. 3, “Gap Width”) has a non-zero extension which is wide enough for applying an anti-corrosion coating (“the distance between structural members 5 and 6 is sufficiently large due to the deformation 8 of the fold 1 to ensure that the entire surface of both structural members 5 and 6 has a cathodic impregnation coating 2. Corrosion in the area is reliably prevented by the deformation 8 of the end region of the fold 1 shown in Figure 2 and by the wetting of the entire surface coating or adhesive associated therewith” [0024]) to the gap base (Annotated Fig. 3, “Gap Base”), and after joining the joining partners (Annotated Fig. 3, “two structural components 5, 6” [0022]), applying an anti-corrosion coating to the joining partners at least in a region of the gap base (Annotated Fig. 3, “Specifically, the surfaces of the surrounding openings 7 of structural components 5 and 6 are wetted with adhesive 3 or have a cathodic varnish coating 2 on the entire surface” [0025]). Examiner note: Stephane does not explicitly express that the anti-corrosion coating is applied after “welding” the two joining partners together. However, Stephane teaches the anti-corrosion coating is applied after the two joining partners are “joined” together, and welding the two joining partners is already taught by Elsner.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Stephane to have the gap width have a non-zero extension which is wide enough for applying an anti-corrosion coating to the gap base, and after welding the joining partners, applying an anti-corrosion coating to the joining partners at least in a region of the gap base. Doing so prevents corrosion from forming in the gap area, as recognized by Stephane (“The folded edge configuration according to the invention is therefore based on the idea that, due to the deformation 8 of the end region of the folded edge 1 in the form of the rolled edge of the first structural member 5, there is no gap between the two structural members 5, 6 that would normally make a reliable cathodic immersion coating on the entire surface almost impossible. Specifically, the surfaces of the surrounding openings 7 of structural components 5 and 6 are wetted with adhesive 3 or have a cathodic varnish coating 2 on the entire surface. The interlocking structure according to the invention thus reliably prevents corrosion in this area without the need for a dedicated seam seal, such as a PVC seam seal ” [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, Elsner discloses further wherein the joining flange of the first joining partner is formed and held on the joining zone of the second joining partner such that the joining flange contacts the joining zone with a line contact or with a surface extension (Annotated Fig. 1, “linear contact” [0044]) of the joining flange (Annotated Fig. 1, “The problem of degassing is solved in the inventive method by laser welding a fillet weld 13, wherein the sheet edge or the joint 9 of the upper second steel sheet 3 rests on the first steel sheet 2 in the radius area, i.e. along the curvature 6, and/or in particular in the vicinity of the radius insertion point E. This results in a linear contact along the edge flange 5, so that the zinc vapor can escape unhindered into the cavity formed by the degassing channel 15, as indicated by arrows D” [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the angle α is 7° to 30°, however Elsner teaches directing the laser beam (Annotated Fig. 1, “laser beam L”) at an angle α (Annotated Fig. 1, “α”) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “Plane of the Joining Zone”).
However, Walter discloses wherein directing the laser beam in a fillet formed by the joining zone and the joining flange at an angle α of -15° to 15° (Walter’s Fig. 4, “beam angle/lateral angle 6” [0023]) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4, “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible… Angles between 15 degrees and minus 15 degrees are particularly preferred” [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Walter shows the overlap with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (7° to 30°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4, “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible… Angles between 15 degrees and minus 15 degrees are particularly preferred” [0025]) of the prior art is (-15° to 15°) which overlaps with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (7° to 30°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 18, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the angle α is 15° to 25°, however Elsner teaches directing the laser beam (Annotated Fig. 1, “laser beam L”) at an angle α (Annotated Fig. 1, “α”) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “Plane of the Joining Zone”).
However, Walter discloses wherein directing the laser beam in a fillet formed by the joining zone and the joining flange at an angle α of -15° to 15° (Walter’s Fig. 4, “beam angle/lateral angle 6” [0023]) in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4, “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible… Angles between 15 degrees and minus 15 degrees are particularly preferred” [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Walter shows the overlap with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (15° to 25°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (Walter’s Fig. 4, “Angles between the beam and the flange plane in the range of plus or minus 60 degrees are possible… Angles between 15 degrees and minus 15 degrees are particularly preferred” [0025]) of the prior art is (-15° to 15°) which overlaps with the claimed laser beam angle α in relation to a plane of the joining zone (15° to 25°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 19, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the joining flange is held on the joining zone at an angle β of 5° to 45°. However, Elsner teaches an acute angle β (0°< and > 90°) (Annotated Fig. 1, “wherein the steel sheets are arranged abutting each other at an acute angle in the laser weld area” [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Elsner shows the overlap with the claimed angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (5° to 45°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “wherein the steel sheets are arranged abutting each other at an acute angle in the laser weld area” [0017]) of the prior art is (0°< β > 90°) which overlaps with the claimed angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (5° to 45°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the angle β is 7° to 30°. However, Elsner teaches an acute angle β (0°< and > 90°) (Annotated Fig. 1, “wherein the steel sheets are arranged abutting each other at an acute angle in the laser weld area” [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since Elsner shows the overlap with the claimed angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (7° to 30°). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (Annotated Fig. 1, “wherein the steel sheets are arranged abutting each other at an acute angle in the laser weld area” [0017]) of the prior art is (0°< β > 90°) which overlaps with the claimed angle β of the joining flange being held onto the joining zone (7° to 30°) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 21, Elsner discloses further wherein at least one joining partner has a zinc coating which vaporizes from the region of the joint of the two joining partners during laser welding (Annotated Fig. 1, “As already stated, the first steel sheet 2 and the second steel sheet 3 are each coated on both sides with a coating B, such as a zinc coating. Zinc has the property, unlike steel, that it evaporates at a lower temperature than steel. This is relatively unproblematic on the free impact surfaces 14 of the first and second steel sheets 2 respectively .3 . Here, any zinc vapor or other coating material that evaporates during laser welding can escape freely” [0038]).
PNG
media_image6.png
338
590
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Elsner)
Regarding claim 22, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein a bead-like weld seam is formed in the gap on the side facing away from the laser beam.
However, Beyer discloses wherein a bead-like weld seam (Annotated Fig. 4, “seam cross section 30” [Col. 7, lines 28-39]) is formed in the gap (Annotated Fig. 4, “gap 32” [Col. 7, lines 28-39]) on the side facing away from the laser beam. Examiner note: bead-like is being interpreted as a bulging or convex surface, see 112(b) rejection section above.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner in view of Walter and Stephane to incorporate the teachings of Beyer to have a bead-like weld seam is formed in the gap on the side facing away from the laser beam. Doing so allows for a sufficient connection strength to be obtained, as recognized by Beyer (“The seam cross section 30 is slightly different from the one in FIG. 7f, determined by a changed melt flow away from the edge 18 or the edge surface 33 of the workpiece 11. However a sufficient connection strength can be obtained even with the existing gap 32” [Col. 7, lines 28-39]).
Regarding claim 23, Elsner discloses further wherein laser welding is carried out without welding additives (Annotated Fig. 1, “the invention relates to laser welding on short flanges on coated sheets, such as... B. galvanized sheet metal” [0001]; “The invention thus provides a method for joining two steel sheets, at least one of which has a coating with a lower melting point than the steel sheet material, by means of a laser weld” [0008]; “Fig. 1 shows a schematic side view from the manufacturing process of a component with two steel sheets joined by a laser weld” [0028]). Examiner note: the laser beam is the only means by which the welding is carried out, as seen in Annotated Fig. 1, as well as Elsner not disclosing flux, shielding chemicals, or TIG or MIG.
Regarding claim 24, Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the anti-corrosion coating is a cathodic dip coating (CDC) coating.
However, Stephane discloses wherein the anti-corrosion coating is a cathodic dip coating (CDC) coating (Annotated Fig. 3, “Corrosion in the area is reliably prevented by the deformation 8 of the end region of the fold 1 shown in Figure 2 and by the wetting of the entire surface coating or adhesive associated therewith” [0024]; “Specifically, the surfaces of the surrounding openings 7 of structural components 5 and 6 are wetted with adhesive 3 or have a cathodic varnish coating 2 on the entire surface” [0025]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner to incorporate the teachings of Stephane to have the anti-corrosion coating be a cathodic dip coating (CDC) coating. Doing so prevents corrosion from forming in the gap area while using a common industry standard anti-corrosion coating, as recognized by Stephane (“The interlocking structure according to the invention thus reliably prevents corrosion in this area” [0025]; “In relation to sheet metal components used in the automotive industry, it is also necessary to consider that these sheet metal components typically have a coating layer manufactured during the cathodic immersion (KTL) process” [0007]).
Regarding claim 25, Elsner discloses further wherein a center of the laser beam is directed onto the end of the joining flange of the first joining partner (Annotated Fig. 1, “As already explained in connection with the explanation that the butt edge 9 of the second steel sheet 3 is no longer visible in the representation of Fig. 1 because the material has already been melted there by means of the laser beam L” [0036]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elsner (D.E. 10261507) in view of Walter (D.E. 102010029477) and Stephane (C.N. 102971166), further in view of Kamogawa et al. (U.S. 5245156), hereinafter Kamogawa.
PNG
media_image7.png
347
276
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Kamogawa)
Regarding claim 13, Elsner further discloses that two joining partners can have variations in dimensions and/or shapes (“Furthermore, the invention advantageously achieves a tolerance to component variations, i.e. specifically variations in the dimensions and/or shapes and/or positions of the first and second steel sheets 2 and 3” [0045]).
Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein at least in the region of the joint of the two joining partners, one joining partner of the two joining partners has a material thickness which is thinner than the other joining partner.
Kamogawa is directed to a method for laser welding two joining partners made of metal held together in a joint. Kamogawa discloses at least in the region of the joint of the two joining partners, one joining partner of the two joining partners has a material thickness which is thinner than the other joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “steel sheet 22” [Col. 3, lines 25-26]; “the method of laser-welding metal sheets 21 and 22 having different thicknesses” [Col. 2, lines 62-64]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner in view of Walter and Stephane to incorporate the teachings of Kamogawa to have a material thickness of a thinner workpiece. Doing so allows for greater flexibility in manufacturing metals with different sizes to be joined together without leaving sharp edges between the different sized metals, as recognized by Kamogawa (“The present invention relates to a method of laser-welding metal sheets having different thicknesses together without leaving a sharp edge at the welded portion“ [Col. 1, lines 7-10]).
PNG
media_image8.png
799
864
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Elsner)
Regarding claim 14, Elsner further discloses wherein the joining flange contacts the joining zone with the surface extension (“The problem of degassing is solved in the inventive method by laser welding a fillet weld 13, wherein the sheet edge or the joint 9 of the upper second steel sheet 3 rests on the first steel sheet 2 in the radius area, i.e. along the curvature 6, and/or in particular in the vicinity of the radius insertion point E. This results in a linear contact along the edge flange 5” [0044]), and a width (Annotated Fig. 5, “Width”) of the surface extension transverse to the side to which the laser beam is applied corresponds to the material thickness of the joining partner (“Preferably, but not necessarily, the dimensions of the edge flange 5 are a few mm to a few cm, preferably a few mm to about 1 cm, as seen from the main part 4 of the first steel sheet” [0042]).
However, Elsner does not expressly disclose that the width of the surface extension transverse to the side to which the laser beam is applied corresponds to the material thickness of the thinner joining partner.
However, Kamogawa discloses the material thickness of the thinner joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “steel sheet 22” [Col. 3, lines 25-26]; “the method of laser-welding metal sheets 21 and 22 having different thicknesses” [Col. 2, lines 62-64]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner in view of Walter and Stephane to incorporate the teachings of Kamogawa to have a material thickness of a thinner workpiece. Doing so allows for greater flexibility in manufacturing metals with different sizes to be joined together without leaving sharp edges between the different sized metals, as recognized by Kamogawa (“The present invention relates to a method of laser-welding metal sheets having different thicknesses together without leaving a sharp edge at the welded portion“ [Col. 1, lines 7-10]).
Regarding claim 15, Elsner teaches that two joining partners can have variations in dimensions and/or shapes (“Furthermore, the invention advantageously achieves a tolerance to component variations, i.e. specifically variations in the dimensions and/or shapes and/or positions of the first and second steel sheets 2 and 3” [0045]).
Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the first joining partner is the thinner joining partner.
However, Kamogawa discloses wherein the first joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “steel sheet 22” [Col. 3, lines 25-26]) is the thinner joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “the method of laser-welding metal sheets 21 and 22 having different thicknesses” [Col. 2, lines 62-64]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner in view of Walter and Stephane to incorporate the teachings of Kamogawa to have a material thickness of a thinner workpiece. Doing so allows for greater flexibility in manufacturing metals with different sizes to be joined together without leaving sharp edges between the different sized metals, as recognized by Kamogawa (“The present invention relates to a method of laser-welding metal sheets having different thicknesses together without leaving a sharp edge at the welded portion“ [Col. 1, lines 7-10]).
Regarding claim 16, Elsner teaches that two joining partners can have variations in dimensions and/or shapes (“Furthermore, the invention advantageously achieves a tolerance to component variations, i.e. specifically variations in the dimensions and/or shapes and/or positions of the first and second steel sheets 2 and 3” [0045]).
Elsner does not expressly disclose wherein the first joining partner is the thinner joining partner.
However, Kamogawa discloses wherein the first joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “steel sheet 22” [Col. 3, lines 25-26]) is the thinner joining partner (Kamogawa’s Fig. 1, “the method of laser-welding metal sheets 21 and 22 having different thicknesses” [Col. 2, lines 62-64]).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Elsner in view of Walter and Stephane to incorporate the teachings of Kamogawa to have a material thickness of a thinner workpiece. Doing so allows for greater flexibility in manufacturing metals with different sizes to be joined together without leaving sharp edges between the different sized metals, as recognized by Kamogawa (“The present invention relates to a method of laser-welding metal sheets having different thicknesses together without leaving a sharp edge at the welded portion“ [Col. 1, lines 7-10]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 06/12/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights