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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyama et al. USPA 2014/0147693 as evidenced by Banerjee et al., “Effect of nugget size and notch geometry on the high cycle fatigue performance of resistance spot welded DP590 steel sheets” in J. Materials Processing Tech. 238 (2016) (July) 226-243.
Yasuyama teaches blank members (e.g., Figure 3 at 20) with reinforcing patch (e.g., Figure 3 at 35) which are joined by plurality of weld zones (40). Yasuyama teaches that these patched members are formed as vehicle body components (paragraphs 4, 20, 52, 54, 113, 151, and others). Yasuyama teaches that effective steels are DP590 (paragraph 158). Thus, formation as vehicle body components using DP590 steels is rendered obvious. As is evident the entire region of HAZ of at least certain welded zones is disposed in region corresponding to patch since the patch covers substantial portion of the blank. This is also evident in Figure 17 where the patch covers substantial portion of blank and welded zones are at the bending areas far from the edges of the patch. Yasuyama teaches that the nugget diameter can be ca. 3 mm or more for sheet thickness of 1 mm or more (paragraph 87) and that the pitch of welded zones in the extending direction can be ca. 40 mm (paragraph 181). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare article with such configuration. In doing so, while the HAZ may be greater than the diameter of nugget, the HAZ region would not be expected to have diameter/size that exceeds ca. 5 or 6 times the diameter of nugget. Note that Banerjee shows nugget size for 1 mm DP590 at ca. 4 to 5 mm with HAZ sizes of ca. less than 1 mm per side (page 227, Section 2; Figures 4a and 4b; and Figures 7 and 8). Thus, the claimed feature of “spaced apart” would be expected to be satisfied since the central point of closest adjacent zone (i.e., the next nugget) would not be expected to overlap any of the HAZ region of the first nugget. The HAZ region would be expected to be “spaced apart” since the central point of closest adjacent zone (i.e., the next nugget) would not be expected to overlap any of the HAZ region of the first nugget defined by a size of ca. 7 mm having an edge that is ca. 27 mm away from central point of second nugget when the pitch is 30 mm. Yasuyama teaches varying the placement as needed (paragraph 93) and demonstrates edge placement in Figure 11(b), with edge welded zone being ca. 15 mm on right and left sides (300/mm divided by 10 sections with welded zones on right and left sides placed at midpoints of divided section). Yasuyama teaches varying the pitch placement as needed (paragraph 99) and demonstrates pitch of 40 mm (paragraph 181) and pitch of 30 mm Figure 11(b), rendering obvious placement at location in stated range. Yasuyama teaches that reinforced blanks may be cold formed to final configuration (paragraph 150), rendering this feature obvious. Furthermore, Yasuyama teaches that formed articles in final configuration have bent portions (e.g., Figures 3, 10, and 17), rendering this feature obvious. Finally, Yasuyama teaches that sheet thickness can be ca. 0.7 mm (paragraph 155) and bend radius can be ca. 3 mm (paragraph 155), which leads to ratio of ca. 2.1, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, Yasuyama teaches spot welding (paragraph 87), rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 5, Yasuyama teaches many arrangements such as Figure 3(a) where left most line is outer row along edge, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, Yasuyama teaches many arrangements such as Figure 3(a) where inside the left most line along the edge is an inner row, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 7, Yasuyama teaches many materials such as steel (paragraph 155 and Example 2), rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 8, Yasuyama teaches and/or suggests materials overlapped by claimed tensile strength range (paragraphs 155 and 158), rendering this feature obvious.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuyama et al. USPA 2014/0147693 in view of Banerjee et al., “Effect of nugget size and notch geometry on the high cycle fatigue performance of resistance spot welded DP590 steel sheets” in J. Materials Processing Tech. 238 (2016) (July) 226-243.
Yasuyama teaches blank members (e.g., Figure 3 at 20) with reinforcing patch (e.g., Figure 3 at 35) which are joined by plurality of weld zones (40). Yasuyama teaches that these patched members are formed as vehicle body components (paragraphs 4, 20, 52, 54, 113, 151, and others). Yasuyama teaches that effective steels are DP590 (paragraph 158). Thus, formation as vehicle body components using DP 590 steels is rendered obvious. As is evident the entire region of HAZ of at least certain welded zones is disposed in region corresponding to patch since the patch covers substantial portion of the blank. This is also evident in Figure 17 where the patch covers substantial portion of blank and welded zones are at the bending areas far from the edges of the patch. Yasuyama teaches that the nugget diameter can be ca. 3 mm or more for sheet thickness of 1 mm or more (paragraph 87) and that the pitch of welded zones in the extending direction can be ca. 40 mm (paragraph 181). Yasuyama may not teach HAZ region size accompanying nugget. Banerjee shows nugget size for 1 mm DP590 at ca. 4 to 5 mm with HAZ sizes of ca. less than 1 mm per side (page 227, Section 2; Figures 4a and 4b; and Figures 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to prepare article with such nugget having such HAZ since Banerjee teaches that effective joining can be accomplished in this situation. In doing so, the HAZ region would be expected to be “spaced apart” since the central point of closest adjacent zone (i.e., the next nugget) would not be expected to overlap any of the HAZ region of the first nugget defined by a size of ca. 7 mm having an edge that is ca. 27 mm away from central point of second nugget when the pitch is 30 mm. Yasuyama teaches varying the placement as needed (paragraph 93) and demonstrates edge placement in Figure 11(b), with edge welded zone being ca. 15 mm on right and left sides (300/mm divided by 10 sections with welded zones on right and left sides placed at midpoints of divided section). Yasuyama teaches varying the pitch placement as needed (paragraph 99) and demonstrates pitch of 40 mm (paragraph 181) and pitch of 30 mm Figure 11(b), rendering obvious placement at location in stated range. Yasuyama teaches that reinforced blanks may be cold formed to final configuration (paragraph 150), rendering this feature obvious. Furthermore, Yasuyama teaches that formed articles in final configuration have bent portions (e.g., Figures 3, 10, and 17), rendering this feature obvious. Finally, Yasuyama teaches that sheet thickness can be ca. 0.7 mm (paragraph 155) and bend radius can be ca. 3 mm (paragraph 155), which leads to ratio of ca. 2.1, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, Yasuyama teaches spot welding (paragraph 87), rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 5, Yasuyama teaches many arrangements such as Figure 3(a) where left most line is outer row along edge, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 6, Yasuyama teaches many arrangements such as Figure 3(a) where inside the left most line along the edge is an inner row, rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 7, Yasuyama teaches many materials such as steel (paragraph 155 and Example 2), rendering this feature obvious.
Regarding Claim 8, Yasuyama teaches and/or suggests materials overlapped by claimed tensile strength range (paragraphs 155 and 158), rendering this feature obvious.
Response to Amendment
In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Yasuyuma, as evidenced by Charde, of the Office Action mailed on 28 October 2025. In view of applicant’s amendments and arguments, applicant traverses the section 103 rejection over Yasuyuma in view of Charde of the Office Action mailed on 28 October 2025. Rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Yasuyama fails to teach or suggest vehicle body feature, but the revised rejections point out how this is taught and suggested.
Applicant argues that HAZ would be expected to be wide, including wider than what Charde demonstrates, and so Charde’s demonstration of HAZ size would be inapplicable. Rejections relying on Charde have been withdrawn. Nevertheless, regarding the now presented rejections that rely on Banerjee, Banerjee shows HAZ region that is narrower than Charde’s for DP590 steel of 1 mm thickness, which is a steel suggested by Yasuyama as being effective. So the argued for expectation of wider HAZ region is not in evidence in Banerjee. To the extent that applicant has other evidence, it is not apparently of record. To the extent that there is another argument being made, it cannot be followed. For example, applicant repeats that “the HAZ 4 is relatively wider than the welded zone 3” (page 6; Figure 2; and page 8). However, it is unclear why applicant considers this a claim requirement, if applicant does. Rather, the claim refers to positioning of the outer perimeter of the HAZ of a first welded zone in contact with respect to central point of a closest adjacent second welded zone OR to positioning of an entire region of the HAZ such that it is spaced apart from the central point of the second welded zone. This latter alternative is satisfied by the applied prior art. However, while these alternatives may implicate or be relevant to HAZ 4 being relatively wide or not, HAZ 4 being relatively wide is not what is claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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, Humera N. Sheikh, can be reached on (571) 272-0604. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
18 February 2026
Prosecution Insights