DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner notes that there is no description of the steel plates “clearance range” of not more than 5% of a width of the steel plates. There is no definition of “clearance range” and what that actually means and requires in the claim.
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 2-3 and 7-8 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.
Re Clms 2 and 7: These claims recite the term “donut-shaped”. This term is unclear as to what constitutes “donut-shaped”, since donuts can have many different shapes. It is unclear as to what is required to have a donut-shape.
Re Clms 3 and 8: These claims refer to a “clearance range”. It is unclear as to what this clearance range refers to and what is being required by such a claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 8890030).
Re Clms 1 and 6: Lin et al. disclose a laser welding method for steel plates and steel plate assembly, comprising the following steps and components of: joining two steel plates (62, 64; disclosed as sleet plates), wherein a joint face of the steel plates extends along a joint line (weld line); using a laser to weld the joint face (as disclosed), wherein the laser has a power of between 20,000 and 30,000 watts (disclosed “up to or exceeding 20-kW); forming a molten region on the joint face using the laser (as shown and disclosed), wherein the molten region extends along the joint line (as shown), after the molten region is cooled and solidified, the steel plates are combined with each other (combined, as they are welded together; see col 4, lines 54-57).
Lin et al. fail to disclose a welding angle is defined between the laser and the joint line, and the welding angle is between 0 degrees and 10 degrees; and the molten region has a molten depth of between 20 and 50 mm, and the molten region has a molten width of between 4 and 7 mm.
Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that providing a laser welding angle between laser and the joint line is extremely common and utilized for the purpose of optimizing the weld depth required for the application. Providing a specific welding angle between 0 degrees and 10 degrees would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed laser weld angle range to provide a desired weld depth for the application.
Regarding the claimed dimensions of the molten region (depth and width), Examiner notes that these dimensions do not provide any unexpected results. Further, it appears the prior art would perform equally well with any suitable and desired depth and width. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have arrived at the claimed dimensions of the molten region. Further, it has been held that when the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is merely the disclosure of the size of a component that does not provide any unexpected results a finding of prima facie obviousness is appropriate (see MPEP $2144.04).
Re Clms 2 and 7 (as best understood): Lin et al. as modified above suggest wherein at least one of the following conditions is met: a defocusing distance of the laser is between 0 and ± T/2 mm, T is a thickness of the steel plates; the laser has a power variation of ± 3%, a wavelength of the laser is between 1030 and 1080 nanometers; a spot shape of the laser is circular or donut-shaped; a spot diameter of the laser is between 0.3 and 5 mm. Examiner notes that as best understood, Lin et al. disclose at least one of the listed conditions.
Re Clms 3 and 8 (as best understood): Lin et al. as modified above suggest wherein when the steel plates are joined, the steel plates have a clearance range of not more than 5% of a width of the steel plates. Examiner notes that as best understood, Lin et al. disclose such a limitation.
Re Clms 4 and 9: Lin et al. disclose wherein the laser has a welding speed ranging from 5 to 80 millimeters per second (middle of col 4).
Re Clms 5 and 10: Lin et al. disclose providing a protective gas (shielding gas, col 4, line 23) to remove a plasma generated during welding of the laser, however, fails to disclose wherein the protective gas is one of argon, helium, nitrogen and carbon dioxide, or a combination thereof. Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that inert gases such as argon, helium, nitrogen and carbon dioxide are well-known shielding gases to protecting the weld by reducing plasma on the weld. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a known gas such as argon, helium, nitrogen and carbon dioxide as the shielding gas to protect the weld.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN PETER MASINICK whose telephone number is (571)270-3060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p EST.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/JONATHAN P MASINICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678