DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 09/15/2023.
Claims 5-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-8 “end face” and “rectangular wire” should be “end faces” and “rectangular wires”
Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2018/0036836) in view of Yamagishi (US 11,097,375).
Regarding Claim 5: Nakamura discloses a laser welding method (the disclosure of device in Fig. 6 discloses its method of operation), comprising:(a) aligning sides (see annotated figure ‘836) of longitudinal ends (see annotated figure ‘836) of conductors (24a,24b; Fig. 4) of two rectangular wires (20a,20b; Fig. 4) with each other; (b) welding the rectangular wires together by irradiating an area (see annotated figure ‘836) including a boundary (see annotated figure ‘836) between end faces (see annotated figure ‘836) of the conductors of the two rectangular wires with a laser (LB; Fig. 4); and (c) once the laser has passed through a transmission optical system (see annotated figure ‘836), irradiating the end face of the rectangular wire with the laser (see annotated figure ‘836), and an irradiation position (see annotated figure ‘836) of the laser to the end face changes in a first direction (see annotated figure ‘836), and wherein, in step (b), the area including the boundary between the end faces of the rectangular wires is irradiated with the laser in such a way that the first direction is parallel to a long side (see annotated figure ‘836) of the end face of the rectangular wire (see Fig. 5 wherein the trajectories of the welding are ellipses, i.e. trajectories composed of motion in a direction along the long side and along the short side, and thus is irradiated along a first direction along the long side and the short side), so that the rectangular wires are welded with each other (see Fig. 5).
Nakamura is silent regarding the transmission optical system being rotatable and the motion being performed according to a rotation phase of the transmission optical system, as well as the laser being a pulsed laser.
However, Yamagishi teaches a method (the disclosure of the device in Fig. 1 discloses its method of operation) of operating a laser welding device (device in Fig. 1) having a transmission optical system (elements providing laser to 20; Fig. 1) being rotatable (elements 14b, 16b are rotatable; Fig. 1), a motion of a laser beam (see Fig. 5) being performed according to a rotation phase (rotation of 14b, 16b )of the transmission optical system, as well as the laser being a pulsed laser (Col. 1 L. 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Nakamura, to have the laser being a pulsed laser as well as the transmission optical the system being rotatable and the motion being performed according to a rotation phase of the transmission optical system, i.e. having the motion in the first direction and/or in second direction perpendicular to the first performed by rotating elements (14b and/or 16b, Fig. 1), as taught by Yamagishi. Such a modification would enable to have a laser delivering high peak power, precision, and minimal thermal damage, as well as to simplify motion mechanism of the system.
PNG
media_image1.png
1015
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6: Nakamura in view of Yamagishi teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, as stated above, and further teaches the irradiation position of the pulsed laser to the end face further changes in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (direction perpendicular to the first direction of the elliptical trajectory in Fig. 5 of Nakamura) on the end face according to the rotation phase of the transmission optical system (rotation of the other rotating element 14a or 14b).
Regarding Claim 7: Nakamura in view of Yamagishi teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, as stated above, and further teaches wherein the pulsed laser is emitted from a processing head to the conductor of the rectangular wire, and wherein in step b) welding the rectangular wires with each other is completed with relative positions of a processing head (see annotated figure ‘836) and the rectangular wire fixed ( see rejection of claim 5 wherein the motion of the head is fixed due to the modification by Yamagishi).
Regarding Claim 8: Nakamura in view of Yamagishi teaches all the limitations of Claim 5, as stated above, and further teaches wherein the pulsed laser is emitted from a processing head to the conductor of the rectangular wire, and wherein in step b) the rectangular wires are welded with each other by the pulsed laser irradiation while the processing head is moved relative to the rectangular wire in a direction parallel to the long side of the rectangular wire or in a direction parallel to a short side of the rectangular wire (see rejection of claim 5 wherein the motion of the head is fixed when move in the first direction but moveable in the second direction, i.e. only one of the rotatable elements of Yamagishi have been used).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights