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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2024 and 11/3/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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: “laser irradiation module” in claim 1, “protection module” in claim 1, “blocking module” in claim 1, and “gas ejection module” in claim 13.
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.
The laser irradiation module is described as follows: “The laser irradiation module 100 may be configured in the form of an optical system to irradiate a laser. The laser may be irradiated in the form of a beam to the welding portion W. In an embodiment, the laser irradiation module 100 may include a laser light source and a focusing lens” (Applicant’s published application, US 2024/0359263, at para. [0044]-[0045]).
The protection module is described as follows: “the protection module 200 may include a protection portion 210 and a protection frame 220” [0049].
The blocking module is described as follows: “the blocking module 300 may include a body 310. The body 310 may be configured in a substantially cylindrical shape. This body 310 may include a guide portion 312. The guide portion 312 may be configured to guide the flow of gas into the body 310. This guide portion 312 may be provided on the outer circumferential surface of the body 310” [0068]-[0070].
The gas ejection module is described as follows: “the gas ejection module K may be an air knife” [0116].
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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (US 2021/0138585).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses a welding device (“laser welding apparatus” [Abstract]) comprising:
a laser irradiation module (Fig. 2, “laser scanner 2” [0016]) configured to irradiate a laser to a welding portion (laser scanner 2 is capable of irradiating the laser beam to a welding portion);
a protection module (Fig. 2, “protection glass 6” [0016]) disposed outside the laser irradiation module (see Fig. 2) and configured to block flying particles scattered from the welding portion (“casing 4 is hermetically sealed with a protection glass 6 that transmits the laser beam” [0016]); and
a blocking module (Fig. 2, “airflow forming unit 3 is equipped with two emission nozzles 7” [0017]; the upper nozzle 7 is interpreted as the blocking module) disposed outside the protection module (see Fig. 2) and configured to block an inflow of the flying particles to the protection module by introducing a gas therein (“since the two sheet-shaped airflows A traversing the optical path of the laser beam are formed by actuating the airflow forming unit 3, the generated spattering and fumes are removed from the optical path of the laser beam due to the airflows” [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
863
466
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Murakami
Regarding claim 5, Murakami discloses wherein the blocking module comprises a body (Fig. 2, blocking module / airflow forming unit 3 comprises body / body of upper nozzle 7), and wherein the body comprises a guide portion configured to guide a flow of the gas into the body (guide portion is inner wall of body 7).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami discloses a gas ejection module (Fig. 2, lower nozzle 7 is interpreted as the gas ejection module) provided below the blocking module (Fig. 2, gas ejection module / lower nozzle 7 is provided below blocking module / upper nozzle 7) and configured to eject the gas in a direction perpendicular to an irradiation direction of the laser (see Fig. 2; lower nozzle ejects “sheet-shaped airflow[] A” [0024] in a direction perpendicular to laser beam).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami discloses a battery manufacturing device comprising the welding device according to claim 1 (Murakami discloses the structure of the welding device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1; accordingly, Murakami discloses all of the positively-recited structure of claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami discloses a vehicle manufacturing device comprising the welding device according to claim 1 (Murakami discloses the structure of the welding device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1; accordingly, Murakami discloses all of the positively-recited structure of claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami discloses the welding device according to claim 1 (Murakami discloses the structure of the welding device of claim 1, as described in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding the claim language, “wherein the welding portion is disposed between components of a battery module,” this language is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. The material or article worked upon is “components of a battery module.” The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). MPEP § 2115.
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 2-4, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami et al. (US 2021/0138585) in view of Moon et al. (KR 10-1918981).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami does not expressly disclose wherein the blocking module is configured to form a vortex by the gas introduced therein.
Moon solves the same problem as the Applicant, which is how to prevent foreign materials from interfering with a laser beam (Abstract of Moon; para. [0003]-[0007] of Applicant’s published application). Moon discloses wherein a blocking module is configured to form a vortex by the gas introduced therein (Figs. 5 and 6, blocking module / “air branching member 50” and “cover member 60” [page 3 of attached translation]; curved arrows in Fig. 6 show a vortex; “air supply port 62 guides the air supply direction to supply air to the air flow path 71 through the air supply hole 64. 6, the air supply port 62 is provided with an air flow path 71 (see FIG. 6) around the center of the photographing hole 35 so that the air supply can be rotated annularly along the annular air flow path 71” [page 4]; “compressed air directed toward the center portion along the inner circumferential surface of the photographing hole 35 is discharged to form an air curtain which blocks the welding fume” [page 4]).
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 include wherein the blocking module is configured to form a vortex by the gas introduced therein. This is a known, alternative configuration for blocking flying particles, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami does not expressly disclose wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex along a circumferential direction inside the blocking module.
Moon discloses wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex along a circumferential direction inside the blocking module (Fig. 6 shows wherein the vortex, shown by curved arrows, is formed along a circumferential direction inside blocking module 50/60).
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 include wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex along a circumferential direction inside the blocking module. This is a known, alternative configuration for blocking flying particles, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Murakami does not expressly disclose wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex while in contact with a lower surface of the protection module.
Moon discloses wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex while in contact with a lower surface of a protection module (Figs. 5 and 6, blocking module 50/60 forms the vortex while in contact with a lower surface of protection module / “flow guiding member 40” [page 3]).
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 include wherein the blocking module is configured to form the vortex while in contact with a lower surface of the protection module. This is a known, alternative configuration for blocking flying particles, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Murakami discloses a guide portion as described in the rejection of claim 5, but does not expressly disclose wherein the guide portion is configured to be formed in a plurality along the outer circumferential surface of the body.
Moon discloses a guide portion, wherein the guide portion is configured to be formed in a plurality along the outer circumferential surface of a body (Fig. 5, a plurality of guide portions / “air flow corrugations 54” are formed along the outer circumferential surface of body of air branching member 50).
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 include wherein the guide portion is configured to be formed in a plurality along the outer circumferential surface of the body. This is a known, alternative configuration for blocking flying particles, applied to a known device, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Murakami does not expressly disclose a flying particles blocking member provided outside the blocking module and configured to block the inflow of the flying particles to the blocking module.
Moon discloses a flying particles blocking member (Fig. 7, “filter 43” [page 5]) provided outside the blocking module / air branching member 50 and cover member 60 (Fig. 7) and configured to block the inflow of the flying particles to the blocking module (filter 43 is capable of blocking the inflow of flying particles to the blocking module).
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 include a flying particles blocking member provided outside the blocking module and configured to block the inflow of the flying particles to the blocking module. This prevents unwanted debris from entering the blocking module.
Regarding claim 15, Murakami / Moon does not expressly disclose wherein the flying particles blocking member is configured to have an inner diameter that becomes narrower toward the welding portion.
However, 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 include wherein the flying particles blocking member is configured to have an inner diameter that becomes narrower toward the welding portion, because this would have been obvious to try. That is, the inner diameter can (A) become narrower, (B) become wider, or (C) remain the same, toward the welding portion, and each of these options would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Murakami does not expressly disclose wherein the flying particles blocking member comprises a filter on a side thereof that is configured to filter the flying particles.
Moon discloses wherein the flying particles blocking member comprises a filter on a side thereof that is configured to filter the flying particles (Fig. 7, “filter 43” [page 5]; filter 43 is capable of filtering flying particles).
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 include wherein the flying particles blocking member comprises a filter on a side thereof that is configured to filter the flying particles. This prevents unwanted debris from entering the blocking module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the welding device of claim 6, which requires wherein the guide portion comprises: an inclined portion formed to be inclined upward in a direction of the protection module on an outer circumferential surface of the body; and an incision portion connected to an end adjacent to the protection module in the inclined portion and configured to guide the flow of the gas from the outer circumferential surface of the body to an inner circumferential surface of the body. Claims 7-10 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 6. Additionally, the prior art of record does not teach, disclose, or suggest the welding device of claim 12, which requires wherein the guide portion is configured to be inclined in one direction along the outer circumferential surface of the body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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 at 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 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights