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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Double Beam Laser Deep Welding Steel/Aluminum Dissimilar Alloys", Paneth et al., Proceedings of the Twenty National Conference on Welding Academic Proceedings, 2015, pp. 437-442, December 31, 2015, as provided by applicant. Hereinafter referred to as “Paneth.”
Regarding claim 1, Paneth discloses, a double beam laser deep welding steel/aluminum dissimilar alloy (equivalent to a joint), and specifically discloses (see pages 437-442) comprising a 304 stainless steel plate disclosing a first processed material, consisting of a first metal, and a 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate (disclosing a second processed material, consisting of a second metal different from the first metal) and a weld (equivalent to a joint, joining the first processed material with the second processed material). Figure 6a shows, with the steel and aluminum contact surfaces as a line, the weld comprises a first weld (corresponding to a first joint) on the side of a 304 stainless steel plate and a second weld (corresponding to a second joint) on the side of a 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate; as the distance from the weld surface increases, the average hardness value of the weld zone increases, analyzed because more aluminum enters the weld zone to form more iron/aluminum intermetallics as the penetration depth increases, whereby it is undoubtedly determined that the aluminum concentration of the first weld differs from the aluminum concentration of the second weld. Regarding claim 2, The test material was 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate with dimensions 150 mm x 100 mm x 1.5 mm, the 304 stainless steel plate with dimensions 150 mm x 100 mm x 1.8 mm, the thickness of the 304 stainless steel plate being greater than the thickness of the 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate, and the tuberculosis figure 6a can be determined without doubt that the first weld seam has a thicker thickness than the second weld seam in a cross-sectional view to a direction perpendicular to the overlapping direction of the 304 stainless steel plate and the 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paneth et al in view of Nowak et al (US 2012/0006795).
The teachings of Paneth et al have been discussed above. Paneth fails to disclose, wherein each of the first workpiece and the second workpiece is made of any one of iron, copper, and aluminum; Regarding claim 4. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of iron, the second workpiece is made of copper, and a concentration of copper in the first joint is less than or equal to 15 atom%. Regarding claim 5. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of copper, the second workpiece is made of iron, and a concentration of iron in the first joint is less than or equal to 20 atom%. Regarding claim 6. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of iron, the second workpiece is made of aluminum, and a concentration of aluminum in the first joint is less than or equal to 65 atom%. Regarding claim 7. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of aluminum, the second workpiece is made of iron, and a concentration of iron in the first joint is less than or equal to 24 atom%. Regarding claim 8, The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of copper, the second workpiece is made of iron, and a concentration of iron in the first joint is less than or equal to 15 atom%. Regarding claim 9. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of iron, the second workpiece is made of aluminum, and a concentration of aluminum in the first joint is less than or equal to 65 atom%. Regarding claim 10. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of copper, the second workpiece is made of aluminum, and a concentration of iron in the first joint is less than or equal to 20 atom%. Regarding claim 11. The joined body according to Claim 3, wherein the first workpiece is made of aluminum, the second workpiece is made of copper, and a concentration of copper in the first joint is less than or equal to 30 atom%.
Nowak discloses two dissimilar materials being welded selected from nickel-based, iron-based alloys, cobalt-based, copper-based, aluminum-based, and titanium-based alloys. (See Paragraph [0014])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Paneth in view of Nowak, to provide the different materials and the percentage of concentration since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paneth et al in view of Nakai et al. (JP 2021-013954) and Avdokhin et al (US 2019/0329357).
Regarding claim 12, Paneth discloses, a double-beam laser deep welding steel/aluminum dissimilar alloy, correspondingly, a method for welding using a laser is disclosed (equivalent to a laser processing method), and specifically discloses (see pages 437-442) welding (equivalent to bonding) a 304 stainless steel plate (disclosing a first member comprising a first metal) and a 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate (disclosing a second member comprising a second metal being a different metal from said first metal), the welding comprising the steps of: A first step of forming a melt pool (equivalent to a joint) of melting a 304 stainless steel plate and a 5083 marine aluminum alloy plate by scanning a large energy laser (equivalent to a first laser); A first step of scanning a small energy laser (corresponding to the second laser) behind the scanning direction of the large energy laser to agitate the metallic tissue in the vicinity of the joint.
Paneth fails to disclose the second laser has a larger beam diameter and a lower power density than the first laser.
Nakai discloses, a welding method and in particular discloses (see paragraphs 5-6 and Figure 9 of the specification) that in the case where the metal materials being joined are iron and aluminum, once the melting of the aluminum starts, the melting of the aluminum rapidly expands from the site of heat input to the surroundings. In addition, as shown in FIG. 9, if the melting amount of aluminum is increased and the concentration of aluminum in the bonding interface is increased to around 75%, a fragile intermetallic compound including a large amount of aluminum, such as Fe2Al5 or FeAl2, is likely to be generated. This problem occurs at regions within the bonding interface that are close to aluminum. In addition, areas containing more fragile intermetallics become sites of poor mechanical strength, likely to deform under the envisaged loads. If the molten iron and aluminum are stirred at the bonding interface, the intermetallic compounds of the bonding interface are uniformly dispersed and the mechanical strength is improved.
Avdokhin discloses, a first and second beam where the second beam has a larger beam diameter than the first beam and a lower density. (See Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Paneth in view of Nakai and Avdokhin to provide the second laser has a larger beam diameter and a lower power density than the first laser for improving the efficiency of the processing.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to adapt Paneth to provide the second laser has a larger beam diameter and a lower power density than the first laser since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14-17, Paneth discloses, a beam splitter is used to split a fiber laser into two beams with two laser spots distributed in series along the welding direction. In order to uniformly disperse the intermetallic compounds at the junction interface.
Regarding claim 18, Paneth discloses a laser processing method, comparative document 1 discloses a double beam laser deep welding steel/aluminum dissimilar alloy, and specifically discloses (see pages 437-442): The laser used in the test was an IPG YLS-6000 fiber laser, splitting the fiber laser light into dual beams using a spectroscope (illumination optical system is disclosed), two laser spots are distributed in series along the welding direction (equivalent to the scanning direction) (disclosing a first laser in front of and a second laser behind the material being processed along the scanning direction), and in conjunction with Fig. 1 it is undoubtedly established that two lasers must be irradiated on the material being processed and scanned along the welding direction and thus necessarily include a scanning system. As can be seen, Comparative Document 1 discloses a laser machining device disclosing all the technical features of the technical solutions claimed by this independent claim, both solutions being substantially identical and both belonging to a laser machining device, solving the same technical problems and producing the same technical effects. Regarding claim 19, the laser is an IPG YLS-6000 fiber laser (equivalent to a laser oscillator, emitting a single laser). A beam splitter (a branched optical system is disclosed) is used to split the fiber laser into two beams with two laser spots distributed in series along the welding direction (a branched optical system is disclosed that branches a single laser from a laser oscillator into a first laser and a second laser and shines into the material being processed along a scanning direction).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights