DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/12/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112b has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 22 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view over Bruck (US 20120183802 A1) in view of Carlson (US 20170232548 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20120183802 A1) in view of Carlson (US 20170232548 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bruck (US 20120183802 A1) teaches a vehicle structural component (Figure 1, assembled structure 10) comprising:
a substrate (first layer/first sheet 12), the substrate having a substrate thickness (Figure 2, Paragraph 18, first layer 12 has a thickness);
at least one patch member (second layer 14) having a size and shape smaller than the substrate (Figure 2, second layer 14 does not extend as far as first layer 12; Paragraphs 15-16, thickness of the material layer may vary from layer to layer wherein each layer may be different in any or all of size, shape, material, and thickness; thus in this range the second layer can have a size and shape smaller than the first layer), the at least one patch member having a patch thickness (Figure 2 Paragraph 18, second layer 14 has a thickness);
wherein the at least one patch member is bonded to the substrate via a full surface bond between the patch member and the substrate (Paragraph 15, the welding continues until the entire area of contacting portions of surface between adjacent substrates has been bonded); and
wherein a total thickness of the vehicle structural component includes the patch thickness and the substrate thickness at the location of the patch member (Figure 2 Paragraph 18, the assembled first and second layer would consist of a thickness of the first layer 12 and the second layer 14 together after the first layer 12 and the second layer 14 are resistance welded).
While Bruck fails to explicitly teach “a substrate of the vehicle structural component”, Carlson (US 20170232548 A1) teaches that the joining of dissimilar material through spot welding is relevant to the manufacture of vehicle bodies (Carlson Paragraph 4). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bruck with Carlson and have the spot-welding method be directed toward the welding of a substrate of a vehicle structural component. This would have been to facilitate joining layers of dissimilar thickness and dissimilar materials (Carlson Paragraph 18) of a substrate wherein each layer of the substrate forms a portion of an assembled structure (Carlson Paragraph 12)
Regarding claim 2, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 1, wherein:
a bonding layer disposed between the patch member and the substrate (Paragraph 15, weld nuggets form a layer between the first and second layers which overlap each other across the entirety of abutting portions of adjacent substrate surfaces).
Regarding claim 3, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 2.
Carlson further teaches:
the bonding layer is brazed between the patch member and substrate (Paragraph 16, one or more spot welds are formed such as to braze the workpiece surfaces together at their facing interface at each spot weld location).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bruck with Carlson and brazed at least part of the patch member and substrate member. This would have been done as brazing is extremely versatile and may be used with many joint shapes which are physically difficult to form by other welding methods as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 57-64 of SKINNER (US 3105293 A).
Regarding claim 6, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 1.
While Bruck as modified fails to teach that “the stiffness and tensile strength of the structural component in a first section of the structural component having a given size, shape, and dimension, at the location of the patch member and including the patch member, is at least 90% of a stiffness and tensile strength of another section of another structural component, the another section having the given size, shape, and dimensions, including a total thickness defined without a patch that is equal to a total thickness of the first section that includes both the patch and the substrate”, Sigler (US 20190283168 A1) teaches of a resistance spot welding workpiece wherein the thickness and strength of a steel support plate used as a patch to augment the rest of a structural component at a weld point are determined and selected based on imparting a desired degree of thickening and stiffening at the point of joining and, wherein the selection is further influenced by a plurality of factors including the strength and thickness of the structural component (Sigler Paragraph 70), wherein the addition of the steel support plate increases the peel and cross-tension strength of the structural component (Sigler Paragraph 64). This is because the amount of thickening and stiffening at the weld joint impacts how effectively a fracture is prevented in the structural component (Sigler Paragraph 70). It would thus be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Bruck so that “the stiffness and tensile strength of the structural component in a first section of the structural component having a given size, shape, and dimension, at the location of the patch member and including the patch member, is at least 90% of a stiffness and tensile strength of another section of another structural component, the another section having the given size, shape, and dimensions, including a total thickness defined without a patch that is equal to a total thickness of the first section that includes both the patch and the substrate”, as discovering an optimal value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art as stated by MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 1, wherein
the thickness of the structural component varies (Figure 2, thickness of the assembled first layer and second layer varies; Paragraph 16, each layer may be different from any or all other layers in any or all of size, shape, material, and thickness).
The Office further notes that having the thickness of a structural component of a vehicle vary based on whether the location has an overlapping patch is well known in the art as evidenced by Figures 1-3 of SCOTT (US 20150375604 A1) which clearly show that the area outside of the patch area has a different thickness compared to that of the overlapping patch area.
Regarding claim 8, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 7, wherein
the thickness of the substrate defines a minimum thickness of the structural component (Figure 2, thickness of the assembled first layer and second layer varies wherein a portion of the first layer 12 is completely exposed with no other layers placed on top of said first layer; Paragraph 16, each layer may be different from any or all other layers in any or all of size, shape, material, and thickness).
The Office further notes that having the thickness of a structural component of a vehicle vary based on whether the location has an overlapping patch is well known in the art as evidenced by Figures 1-3 of SCOTT (US 20150375604 A1) which clearly show that the area outside of the patch area has a different thickness compared to that of the overlapping patch area.
Regarding claim 22, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 3.
Carlson further teaches:
the bonding layer is brazed via resistance welding (Paragraph 16, one or more spot welds are formed such as to braze the workpiece surfaces together at their facing interface at each spot weld location).
It would have thus been obvious for the same motivation as claim 3.
Regarding claim 23, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 1, wherein:
the patch has outermost extents defining an overall size and shape of the patch (Paragraphs 15-16, thickness of the material layer may vary from layer to layer wherein each layer may be different in any or all of size, shape, material, and thickness; second layer 14 would have an overall size and shape), wherein the patch a surface area defined by the outermost extents (Figures 1-2, the edges of second layer are clearly in contact with and are welded to the first layer), wherein an entirety of the surface area of the patch is bonded to the substrate (Paragraph 15, entire area of contacting portions of surfaces between adjacent substates has been bounded such that there are no gaps present between abutting portions of adjacent substrate surfaces).
The Office notes that Figure 7 of Carlson teaches of a patch wherein the patch is smaller than the area of the workpiece to which it is welded. Since Paragraphs 15-16 of Bruck teach that the thickness of the material layer may vary from layer to layer wherein each layer may be different in any or all of size, shape, material, and thickness, having a patch in which has a surface area defined by the outermost extents wherein an entirety of the surface area touches the first layer workpiece would be in this range.
The Office further notes that the MEPE teaches that mere changes in shape are not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. MPEP §2144.04.IV.B. In this case, having the surface area of the patch defined by the outermost extends completely contact the substrate is not patentably distinguishable over prior art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck (US 20120183802 A1) in view of Carlson (US 20170232548 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of HARRIS (US 20160221485 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bruck as modified teaches the vehicle structural component of claim 8.
While Bruck as modified fails to explicitly teach that “the stiffness at the minimum thickness of the substrate is less than the stiffness at a location of the patch”, Paragraph 60 of HARRIS (US 20160221485 A1) teaches that the purpose of welding reinforcement plates onto vehicular parts is to reinforce and stiffen thin material sections and high stress areas. It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bruck with HARRIS and have the stiffness where the patch is not located to have a stiffness which is less than the stiffness at the location of the patch. This would have been done such as to reinforce and improve the stiffness at thin material and high stress areas compared to areas of the substrate which are not reinforced (HARRIS Paragraph 60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761