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 (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Examiner note: the IDS submitted on 03/05/2024 listed the foreign document number as “4-81288”, however it should read “04081288.” The foreign patent document has been correctly listed on the “PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.”
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A diffractive optical element” in claims 1 and 4. This limitation uses the generic placeholder “element” (Prong A); the term “element” is modified by functional language “diffractive optical” (Prong B); and the term “element” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “a diffractive optical element” will be interpreted as “a beam shaper” and equivalents, as indicated by: “The diffractive optical element 22 serves as a beam shaper that shapes a beam shape by bending or combining the input laser beam in a direction affected by each diffraction grating” [0027].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 and 5 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 4 recites the limitation "a laser beam" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a laser beam” is already established in claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “laser beam” or the same “laser beam.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a condenser lens" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a condenser lens” is already established in claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “condenser lens” or the same “condenser lens.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a diffractive optical element" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a diffractive optical element” is already established in claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “diffractive optical element” or the same “diffractive optical element.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a spot diameter" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a spot diameter” is already established in claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “spot diameter” or the same “spot diameter.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a focal point" in lines 9-10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “a focal point” is already established in claim 1, and claim 4 depends from claim 1, thus it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim another “focal point” or the same “focal point.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a surface layer of the first metal plate of the first metal plate” in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is a lack of clarity as to what applicant means by “of the first metal plate of the first metal plate,” thus claim 5 is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 5 is also rejected for its dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuoka et al. (US 20210178514 A1), hereinafter Yasuoka, in view of Kyohei et al. (WO 2022009721 A1), hereinafter Kyohei and Kaiser (CN 114173981 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
168
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (Yasuoka)
PNG
media_image2.png
320
461
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Yasuoka)
PNG
media_image3.png
236
373
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5A (Yasuoka)
PNG
media_image4.png
393
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 (Yasuoka)
PNG
media_image5.png
395
575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 12 (Yasuoka)
PNG
media_image6.png
493
444
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A (Kyohei)
PNG
media_image7.png
258
354
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Kaiser)
Regarding claim 1, Yasuoka discloses a laser welding method comprising: applying a laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) to a welded member in which a first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) and a second metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W12” [0073]) are superposed (“two plate-like metallic members W11 and W12 superimposed on each other” [0073]), to weld the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) and the second metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W12” [0073]), wherein the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) is caused to pass through a diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]; “The laser welding apparatus 200 implements welding by principles that are similar to those of the laser welding apparatus 100” [0073]) configured to reduce (“the diffractive optical element 223 splits laser beam input from the collimator lens 221, into a main beam and at least one auxiliary beam” [0078]) a spot diameter (“diameter 2R” [0059] and [0063]) of a focal point (“the ring shape on a surface of a workpiece” [0059] and [0063]) of the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) and then to pass through a condenser lens (Fig. 12, “condenser lens 222” [0078]) such that the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) has the spot diameter (Fig. 5A, “diameter 2R” [0059] and [0063]) of the focal point (“the ring shape on a surface of a workpiece” [0059] and [0063]) of 0.45 -1.8 mm (Fig. 7, “diameters 2R of circular approximations of the approximate ring shapes each formed by 16 auxiliary beams on a surface of a workpiece were 450 μm, 600 μm, 800 μm, 1000 μm, 1400 μm, and 1800 μm” [0063]), and the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) is applied to the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]).
Yasuoka does not explicitly disclose a second metal plate formed of a material having a melting point lower than a melting point of the first metal plate, the laser beam has the spot diameter of the focal point of 0.3 mm or less.
However, Kyohei discloses a laser welding method (“a method for manufacturing a dissimilar material joint structure, which involves laser welding an aluminum or aluminum alloy material having a low-temperature thermal spray coating formed on its surface to a steel material” [0001]) wherein a second metal plate (Kyohei’s Fig. 1A, “aluminum alloy material 11” [0026]) formed of a material (“aluminum alloy material” [0026]) having a melting point lower than a melting point of the first metal plate (Kyohei’s Fig. 1A, “steel material 13” [0026]).
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 Yasuoka to incorporate the teachings of Kyohei to have a second metal plate formed of a material having a melting point lower than a melting point of the first metal plate. Doing so allows for a wider variety of materials to be welded together. This is especially advantageous in automobile manufacturing, materials with higher melting points like steel enhancing collision safety, whereas, materials with lower melting points like aluminum alloys being lighter weight and reducing CO2 emissions, as recognized by Kyohei (“In recent years, high-tensile strength steel (HTSS) has been applied to the body structure and other components of automobiles in order to reduce CO2 emissions by making vehicles lighter and to enhance collision safety” [0002]; “Furthermore, in order to further reduce the weight of the vehicle body, there is a growing demand for dissimilar metal joining materials that combine lightweight aluminum alloy materials and steel materials” [0003]).
Additionally, Kaiser discloses a laser welding method (“The objective of this invention is to provide a method for welding copper-aluminum joints” [n0009]) wherein the laser beam (Kaiser’s Fig. 1, “laser beam 3” [n0056]) has the spot diameter (Kaiser’s Fig. 1, “spot diameter SD” [n0056]) of the focal point (“focal point” [n0056]) of 0.3 mm or less (“The (maximum) spot diameter of the laser beam on the surface of the first workpiece is typically SD ≤ 100 μm, preferably SD ≤ 65 μm, and particularly preferably SD ≤ 50 μm” [n0016]; “the laser beam has a spot diameter SD on the surface of the first workpiece, wherein 25 μm ≤ SD ≤ 65 μm, particularly 30 μm ≤ SD ≤ 50 μm” [n0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yasuoka with Kaiser, by modifying the laser beam spot diameter of the focal point of Yasuoka with the laser beam spot diameter of the focal point being taught by Kaiser, for in doing so would allow the laser beam’s spot diameter of the focal point to be smaller, which would allow for highly precise weld seams.
Additionally, a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.3 mm or less in lieu of a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.45 -1.8 mm for the purpose of providing a smaller spot diameter would have been obvious as:
1) Both spot diameters address a recognized problem of providing precise weld seams between two dissimilar metal plates.
2) There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this
problem, and
3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued , a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.3 mm or less with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Regarding claim 2, Yasuoka further discloses wherein the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) comprises a plating layer (“thin layer of another metal” [0096]) on a surface (“metallic surface” [0096]) of the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) (“Furthermore, like a plated metallic plate, a workpiece may have, on its metallic surface, a thin layer of another metal” [0096]), the diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]) divides the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) into a main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) and one or more sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) each having a power density (“power of one of the auxiliary beams B2” [0055]) smaller than a power density of the main beam (“power of the main beam B1” [0055]) (“the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the power of one of the auxiliary beams B2 is 9:1/16 =144:1. In addition, if this ratio is 1:9, the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the power of one of the auxiliary beams B2 is 1:9/16 =16:9” [0055]) the main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) welds the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) and the second metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W12” [0073]) (“A laser welding apparatus 200 irradiates a workpiece W1 with laser beam L to perform welding of the workpiece W1. The workpiece W1 is formed of two plate-like metallic members W11 and W12 superimposed on each other” [0073]), and the one or more sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) are formed at least forward in a travel direction (Figs. 3 and 4, “sweep direction SD” [0042]) of the main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) (“The laser beam L shaped by the diffractive optical element 123 is formed of a main beam B1 and an auxiliary beam B2, like an example of a cross-sectional shape of the laser beam L illustrated in FIG. 3, the cross-sectional shape being on a plane perpendicular to the direction in which the laser beam L travels. A sweep direction SD is the direction of movement of the laser beam L, the movement being relative to the workpiece W” [0042]), and melt a surface layer (Fig. 4, “shallow region S” [0048]) of the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) (Figs. 4 and 12, “Furthermore, the power density of the auxiliary beam B2 is a power density that enables the workpiece W to be melted: in the presence of the main beam B1; or by the auxiliary beam B2 itself alone. Therefore, a molten pool WP is formed as a molten region, the molten pool WP having a region that is in front of a position irradiated with the main beam B1, the region being shallower than the depth melted by the main beam B1. This region will be called a shallow region S for the sake of convenience” [0048]; “FIG. 5A to FIG. 5C each illustrate arrangement of plural beams on a surface of the workpiece W, the surface being irradiated with laser beam L" [0052]; “A laser welding apparatus 200 irradiates a workpiece W1 with laser beam L to perform welding of the workpiece W1. The workpiece W1 is formed of two plate-like metallic members W11 and W12 superimposed on each other” [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Yasuoka further discloses wherein the one or more sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) comprise sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]), and the sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) are formed into a ring shape (Fig. 5A, “ring shape” [0057]) surrounding the main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) (“Furthermore, in the examples illustrated in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B, since the auxiliary beams B2 are positioned to form an approximate ring shape with the main beam B1 in the center of the approximate ring shape” [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Yasuoka further discloses a laser welding apparatus (Fig. 12, “laser welding apparatus 200” [0073]; “The laser welding apparatus 200 implements welding by principles that are similar to those of the laser welding apparatus 100” [0073]) configured to implement the laser welding method according to claim 1, the laser welding apparatus (Fig. 12, “laser welding apparatus 200” [0073]) comprising: a laser oscillator (Fig. 12, “laser device 210 includes a laser oscillator” [0075]) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]); a condenser lens (Fig. 12, “condenser lens 222” [0078]) configured to condense the generated laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]); and a diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]) disposed between the laser oscillator (Fig. 12, “laser device 210 includes a laser oscillator” [0075]) and the condenser lens (Fig. 12, “condenser lens 222” [0078]), the diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]) being configured to reduce (“the diffractive optical element 223 splits laser beam input from the collimator lens 221, into a main beam and at least one auxiliary beam” [0078]) a spot diameter (“diameter 2R” [0059] and [0063]) of a focal point (“the ring shape on a surface of a workpiece” [0059] and [0063]) of the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]), the diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]) being configured to reduce (“the diffractive optical element 223 splits laser beam input from the collimator lens 221, into a main beam and at least one auxiliary beam” [0078]) the spot diameter (“diameter 2R” [0059] and [0063]) of the focal point (“the ring shape on a surface of a workpiece” [0059] and [0063]) of the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) to 0.45 -1.8 mm (Fig. 7, “diameters 2R of circular approximations of the approximate ring shapes each formed by 16 auxiliary beams on a surface of a workpiece were 450 μm, 600 μm, 800 μm, 1000 μm, 1400 μm, and 1800 μm” [0063]), and the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]).
Yasuoka does not explicitly disclose the spot diameter of the focal point of the laser beam to be 0.3 mm or less.
However, Kaiser discloses a laser welding method (“The objective of this invention is to provide a method for welding copper-aluminum joints” [n0009]) wherein the spot diameter (Kaiser’s Fig. 1, “spot diameter SD” [n0056]) of the focal point (“focal point” [n0056]) of the laser beam (Kaiser’s Fig. 1, “laser beam 3” [n0056]) to be 0.3 mm or less (“The (maximum) spot diameter of the laser beam on the surface of the first workpiece is typically SD ≤ 100 μm, preferably SD ≤ 65 μm, and particularly preferably SD ≤ 50 μm” [n0016]; “the laser beam has a spot diameter SD on the surface of the first workpiece, wherein 25 μm ≤ SD ≤ 65 μm, particularly 30 μm ≤ SD ≤ 50 μm” [n0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yasuoka with Kaiser, by modifying the laser beam spot diameter of the focal point of Yasuoka with the laser beam spot diameter of the focal point being taught by Kaiser, for in doing so would allow the laser beam’s spot diameter of the focal point to be smaller, which would allow for highly precise weld seams.
Additionally, a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.3 mm or less in lieu of a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.45 -1.8 mm for the purpose of providing a smaller spot diameter would have been obvious as:
1) Both spot diameters address a recognized problem of providing precise weld seams between two dissimilar metal plates.
2) There are a finite number of identified and predictable solutions to this
problem, and
3) One of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued , a laser beam with a spot diameter of a focal point of 0.3 mm or less with a reasonable expectation of success.
Based on the above, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under 35 USC 103. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuoka further discloses wherein the diffractive optical element (Fig. 12, “diffractive optical element 223” [0078]) is configured to divide the laser beam (Fig. 12, “laser beam L” [0073]) into a main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) and one or more sub-beams (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) each having a power density (“power of one of the auxiliary beams B2” [0055]) smaller than a power density of the main beam (“power of the main beam B1” [0055]) (“the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the power of one of the auxiliary beams B2 is 9:1/16 =144:1. In addition, if this ratio is 1:9, the ratio between the power of the main beam B1 and the power of one of the auxiliary beams B2 is 1:9/16 =16:9” [0055]), the main beam welds (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]) the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) and the second metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W12” [0073]), and the sub-beam (Fig. 5A, “auxiliary beams B2” [0042]) is formed at least forward in a travel direction (Figs. 3 and 4, “sweep direction SD” [0042]) of the main beam (Fig. 5A, “main beam B1” [0042]), and melts a only a surface layer (Fig. 4, “shallow region S” [0048]) of the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) of the first metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W11” [0073]) and the second metal plate (Fig. 12, “metallic member W12” [0073]) (Fig. 4, “Furthermore, the power density of the auxiliary beam B2 is a power density that enables the workpiece W to be melted: in the presence of the main beam B1; or by the auxiliary beam B2 itself alone. Therefore, a molten pool WP is formed as a molten region, the molten pool WP having a region that is in front of a position irradiated with the main beam B1, the region being shallower than the depth melted by the main beam B1. This region will be called a shallow region S for the sake of convenience” [0048]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 1, 4, and 5, Yasuda et al. (US 20200290153 A1), hereinafter Yasuda, discloses:
PNG
media_image8.png
548
488
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Yasuda)
PNG
media_image9.png
354
498
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Yasuda)
PNG
media_image10.png
344
499
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 (Yasuda)
First metal plate (Yasuda’s Fig. 2, “an upper base material 60” [0044])
Second metal plate (Yasuda’s Fig. 2, “a lower base material 70” [0044])
Laser welding apparatus (Yasuda’s Fig. 1, “laser welder 1” [0044])
Laser oscillator (Yasuda’s Fig. 1, “laser oscillator 30” [0035])
Laser beam (Yasuda’s Fig. 1, “laser beam 40” [0036])
Condenser lens (Yasuda’s Fig. 1, “focusing lens 13” [0038])
Diffractive optical element (Yasuda’s Fig. 1, “mode setter 12 uses a member for changing a path of light, for example, a lens, and/or a DOE (Diffractive Optical Element)” [0040])
Main beam (Yasuda’s Fig. 6, “first peak area 41” [0057])
One or more sub-beams (Yasuda’s Fig. 6, “at least one second peak area 44” [0057])
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 09/15/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights