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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood (US3095951) in view of Kamo (US20160314860).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Rood
Regarding claim 1, Rood teaches a joining structure joining, to each other,
a first member (13) including a ferrous metal material (steel), a second member (11), and a third member (Col. 3 lines 5-20 welding wire 21, being arc welded into weld bead 15) including a filler material (Col. 3 lines 5-20 wire 21 of consumable electrode) welded to the first member (13),
the second member (11) including a non-ferrous material (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material)
the first member (13), the second member (11), and the third member (21) being joined to each other (Fig. 4)
the first member (13) includes a non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) in an upper surface (Annotated Fig. 4) thereof, the non-through hole having a depth not penetrating entirely through the first member in a thickness direction (Annotated Fig. 4),
the second member (11) includes a penetrating part (12) that opens at a position corresponding to the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4),
third member (21, 15) being an arc-weld bead (15) including a flange (Fig. 4) pressing a peripheral edge of the penetrating part (12) of the second member (11),
the third member (21, 51) is arc-welded (Col. 3 lines 5-20 arc welding) to an inner peripheral surface and a bottom surface of the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) of the first member (11) and an opening surface (Annotated Fig. 4) of the first member (13) opened by the penetrating part (12) of the second member (11) such that the third member (21, 15) formed as the arc-welded bead (15) fills both the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) and the penetrating part (11), and
the second member (11) is sandwiches between the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13) by solidification contraction of the third member (15), and so that the second member (11) is fixed between the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13)
Rood is silent on wherein the non-through hole of the first member has a smaller size than the penetrating part of the second member to expose a portion of the upper surface of the first member within the penetrating part, the opening surface being the exposed portion of the upper surface of the first member within the penetrating part.
PNG
media_image2.png
344
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 21
Kamo teaches wherein the non-through hole (6) of the first member (1) has a smaller size (Fig. 21) than the penetrating part (7A) of the second member (5) to expose a portion of the upper surface of the first member (1) within the penetrating part, the opening surface (Annotated Fig. 21) being the exposed portion of the upper surface of the first member (1) within the penetrating part (7A).
Rood and Kamo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of joining structures and methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Rood to incorporate the teachings of Kamo to have the non-through hole of the first member have a smaller size than a penetrating part of a second member, which exposes a portion of the upper surface of the first member in order to reduce the formation of weld defects (Kamo [0165]).
Regarding claim 2, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, and Rood teaches wherein the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) protrudes radially outward from the penetrating part (12) on a surface of the second member (11) opposite to the first member (13).
Regarding claim 6, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, and Rood teaches wherein the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) has a tapered shape that widens toward the bottom of the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
240
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Rood
Regarding claim 8, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, and Rood teaches comprising a fixing member (1) overlapped with a surface of the second member (11) opposite to the first member (13),
wherein the fixing member (1) has a fixing hole (4, Fig. 2) opening at a position corresponding to the penetrating part (12) and the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4),
the third member (21) is arc-welded, via the fixing hole (1) and the penetrating part (12), to the inner peripheral surface and the bottom of the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) is configured to press the peripheral edge of the penetrating part (12) via the fixing member (1),
and the fixing member (1) and the second member (11) are sandwiched between the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13) and compressed by solidification contraction of the third member (21),
and thus the fixing member (1) and the second member (11) are fixed between the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13).
Rood is silent on the opening surface of the first member opened by the penetrating part of the second member.
Kamo teaches the opening surface (Annotated Fig. 21) of the first member (1) opened by the penetrating part (7A) of the second member (5).
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood to incorporate the teachings of Kamo to weld an opening surface of a first member in order to reduce the formation of weld defects (Kamo [0165]).
Regarding claim 13, Rood teaches a joining structure joining, to each other,
a first member (13) having an upper surface, a lower surface opposite to the upper surface (Fig. 4), and a non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) disposed on the upper surface, the first member including a ferrous metal material (steel),
a second member (11) including a penetrating part (12) that opens at a position corresponding to the non-through hole (12), and a peripheral edge (Fig. 4) defining the penetrating part (5), and being disposed on the upper surface of the first member (10),
a third member being an arc-weld bead (21, being welding bead 15) arc-welded (arc weld) to an inner peripheral surface and a bottom surface of the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) and to an opening surface (4) of the first member (13) on the upper surface of the first member opened by the penetrating part (12) and located at a periphery of the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4),
and having a flange (Annotated Fig. 4) connected to the welded part via the penetrating part (5) and covering the peripheral edge of the second member (Fig. 4),
the second member (11) including a non-ferrous material (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material)
the third member including a filler material (welding wire 21, being arc welded into weld bead 15) welded to the first member (13) such that the arc-weld bead (15) fills both the non-through hole (Annotated Fig. 4) and the penetrating part (12)
wherein the second member (11) is compressed by the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13) by solidification contraction of the third member (21, 15), and thus the second member (11) is fixed between the flange (Annotated Fig. 4) and the first member (13).
Rood is silent on a size of the penetrating part is larger than a size of the non-through hole.
Kamo teaches (7A) is larger than a size of the non-through hole (6, Fig. 21),
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood to incorporate the teachings of Kamo to have the non-through hole of the first member have a smaller size than a penetrating part of a second member in order to reduce the formation of weld defects (Kamo [0165]).
Regarding claim 16, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, and Rood teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member (11) is a non-ferrous metal material (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material)
Regarding claim 18, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 13, and Rood teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member (11) is a non-ferrous metal material (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material).
Claims 3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood (US3095951) and Kamo (US20160314860) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sasaki (JP2010227956A), referred to as Sasaki ‘956, with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 3, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on the penetrating part is defined by the peripheral edge, the peripheral edge includes a tapered part tapered toward the first member, and the flange presses the tapered part.
Sasaki ‘956 teaches the penetrating part is defined by the peripheral edge ([0019] an annular inclined portion 4 A), the peripheral edge includes a tapered part tapered toward the first member, and the flange presses the tapered part ([0019] an annular inclined part 4 a formed by chamfering is formed at the tip part of the columnar welding member 4, being the flange).
Rood, Kamo, and Sasaki ‘956 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of joining structures and methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘956 to define a penetrating part by the peripheral edge which has a tapered part tapered toward the first edge that is pressed by the flange in order to have positioning of the columnar welding member with respect to the through hole become easy with no trouble in diffusion bonding (Sasaki ‘956 [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on the second member further includes a step that opens at a surface opposite to the first member, and the penetrating part is disposed on a bottom surface of the step.
Sasaki ‘956 teaches the second member further includes a step that opens at a surface opposite to the first member ([0019] an annular inclined portion 4 A), and the penetrating part is disposed on a bottom surface of the step ([00178] the wall surface of the through-hole is straight, attached to inclined portion 4A).
It would have been obvious to have modified Iwase and Takeda to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘956 to have the second member include a step that opens opposite the first member and penetrating part at the bottom of the step in order to have positioning of the columnar welding member with respect to the through hole become easy with no trouble in diffusion bonding (Sasaki [0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Rood, Kamo, and Sasaki ‘956 teach the joining structure according to claim 9, but Rood and Kamo are silent on the wherein the bottom surface of the step is inclined toward the penetrating part.
Sasaki ‘956 teaches wherein the bottom surface of the step is inclined toward the penetrating part ([0019] an annular inclined portion 4 A).
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘956 to have the bottom surface of the step be inclined toward the penetrating part in order to have positioning of the columnar welding member with respect to the through hole become easy with no trouble in diffusion bonding (Sasaki ‘956 [0019]).
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood (US3095951) and Kamo (US20160314860) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Sasaki (JP2007326125A), referred to as Sasaki ‘125 with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the non-through hole includes a bottom having a flat shape and an inclined part inclined toward the bottom.
PNG
media_image4.png
239
366
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Sasaki ‘125
However, Sasaki ‘125 teaches wherein the non-through hole includes a bottom having a flat shape and an inclined part inclined toward the bottom ([0027] Fig. 4 central hole Y having a flat bottom and an inclined part toward the bottom).
Rood, Kamo, and Sasaki ‘125 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of joining structures and methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘125 to have the non-through hole have a bottom with a flat shape and an inclined part toward the bottom in order to increase the area of the joint surface so that the welding strength can be improved ([0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the non-through hole has a tapered shape tapered toward the bottom of the non-through hole.
However, Sasaki ‘125 teaches wherein the non-through hole has a tapered shape tapered toward the bottom of the non-through hole ([0027] Fig. 4 central hole Y having an inclined part toward the bottom).
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘125 to have the non-through hole having a tapered shape toward the bottom in order to increase the area of the joint surface so that the welding strength can be improved (Sasaki ‘125 [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the non-through hole includes a plurality of small non-through holes smaller than the non-through hole.
However, Sasaki ‘125 teaches wherein the non-through hole includes a plurality of small non-through holes smaller than the non-through hole ([0030] a plurality of island-like or arbitrary shapes of narrow annular, grid or the like is formed on upper surface of the weld object W1).
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki ‘125 to have a non-through hole having a plurality of small non-through holes in order to increase the area of the joint surface so that the welding strength can be improved (Sasaki ‘125 [0018]).
Claims 11, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rood (US3095951) and Kamo (US20160314860) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, further in view of Fujiwara (US11525469).
Regarding claim 11, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the third member includes a first joint welded to the first member and a second joint welded to the first joint and constituting the flange.
Fujiwara teaches wherein the third member (13) includes a first joint (21a) welded to the first member (6) and a second joint (21b) welded to the first joint (21a) and constituting the flange (Col. 9 lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara to have a first and second joint of a third member, the second joint constituting a flange such that a flange may be formed without the possibility of melting a second intermediate material (Fujiwara Col. 10 lines 1-4)
Regarding claim 15, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the third member is made of a filler material identical to the metal material of the first member.
Fujiwara teaches wherein the third member is made of a filler material identical to the metal material of the first member (Col. 5 lines 55-65 materials 1 and 13 can be same materials)
It would have been obvious to have modified Rood and Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Fujiwara to have the third member and first member be of the same material so that the materials can be firmly fixed together (Fujiwara Col. 5 lines 35-65).
Regarding claim 17, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 1, but are silent wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material (Col. 6 lines 1-10 second material 2, being nonferrous resin).
It would have been obvious to have modified the second member as taught by the combination of Rood and Kamo, to be a plastic resin as taught in Fujiwara, as plastic resin is also known to be difficult to weld to a first material (Fujiwara Col. 6 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 19, Rood and Kamo teach the joining structure according to claim 13, but are silent wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material (Col. 6 lines 1-10 second material 2, being nonferrous resin).
It would have been obvious to have modified the second member as taught by the combination of Rood and Kamo, to be a plastic resin as taught in Fujiwara, as plastic resin is also known to be difficult to weld to a first material (Fujiwara Col. 6 lines 1-10).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US20160314860) in view of Rood (US3095951).
Regarding claim 14, Kamo teaches a joining method comprising:
preparing a first (1) member having an upper surface and a lower surface opposite to the upper surface (base material 1 Fig. 21 having an upper and lower surface), the first member (1) including a non-through hole (6) and includes a ferrous metal material ([0007] low alloy steel, known to be ferrous),
preparing a second member (5) that includes a penetrating part (7A) and a peripheral edge (element B in annotated Fig. 21, noting the edge of clad layer 5) defining the penetrating part (Fig. 21 opening 7A having a peripheral edge),
arranging the second member (5) on the upper surface of the first member (1) for the penetrating part (7A) to be located corresponding to the non-through hole (6), and for an opening surface (element A in annotated Fig. 21) of the first member (1) opened by the penetrating part (7A),
forming a third member (3) comprising a filler material ([0074] weld metal consisting welding material 2, being an austenitic stainless steel) welded to the first member by arc-welding ([0104] TIG welding or laser welding), via the penetrating part (7A), to an inner peripheral surface and a bottom surface of the non-through hole (6, Fig. 21 weld melt 3 on all surface of depressed portion 6) of the first member (1) and the opening surface (element A in annotated Fig. 21) of the first member (1)
the third member (3) including a flange (flange shown in annotated Fig. 21 above) that pressed the peripheral edge (element B in annotated Fig. 21, noting the edge of clad layer 5), and
fixing the second member (5) between the flange (3) and the first member (1) by the second member (3) being sandwiched and compressed by the flange and the first member by solidification contraction of the third member (Fig. 21 weld metal 3 would be understood to solidify in the position shown, where clad layer 5 is between the flange part of weld metal 3 and base material 1, after the welding process)
wherein the non-through hole (6) of the first member (1) has a smaller size (Fig. 21) than the penetrating part (7A) of the second member (5) to expose a portion of the upper surface of the first member (1) within the penetrating part, the opening surface (Annotated Fig. 21 above) being the exposed portion of the upper surface of the first member within the penetrating part (7A).
Kamo is silent on a second member including a non-ferrous material, the third member being an arc-weld bead, such that the arc weld bead fills both the non-through hole and the penetrating part.
Rood teaches a second member (11) including a non-ferrous material the second member (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material);
third member (21,15) being an arc-weld bead (welding wire 21, being arc welded into weld bead 15) such that the arc weld bead (15) fills both the non-through hole and the penetrating part (Annotated Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kamo to incorporate the teachings of Rood to have the second member be a nonferrous material as using nonferrous materials for making a joined structure and for the third material to be a weld bead as joining dissimilar metals is known to be highly desirable (Rood Col. 1 lines 15-35) and to be able to eliminate defects commonly found in welding dissimilar materials (Rood Col. 2 lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kamo and Rood teach all of the elements of the current invention as described above. Rood further teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a non-ferrous metal material (Col. 1 lines 25-35 aluminum, magnesium, copper, ceramic, or any other material incompatible from a welding standpoint to an easily weldable material);
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (US20160314860) and Rood (US3095951) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Fujiwara (US11525469).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Kamo, Fujiwara, and Rood teach the joining method according to claim 14, but are silent on wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the non-ferrous material of the second member is a plastic resin material (Col. 6 lines 1-10 second material 2, being nonferrous resin).
It would have been obvious to have modified the second member as taught by the combination of Kamo and Rood, to be a plastic resin as taught in Fujiwara, as plastic resin is also known to be difficult to weld to a first material (Fujiwara Col. 6 lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 06/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 13 under Iwase (US20090294410) and claim 14 under Kamo (US20160314860) in view of Fujiwara (US11525469) and have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, Applicant's amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein the new ground(s) of rejection is made towards claims 1 and 13 in view of newly cited reference Rood (US3095951) and Kamo (US20160314860) and towards claim 14 in view of Kamo (US20160314860) in view of newly cited reference Rood (US3095951).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/6/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761