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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/25 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.
Claims 1-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatani et al. (US 7005607, hereafter “Takatani”) in view of Nobutoki et al. (JP 2019-089099-A, translation of record, “Nobutoki”).
Regarding claim 1, Takatani discloses a T-joint for steel constructions comprising (col. 1, lines 14-20; col. 11, lines 43-50): a first steel sheet 2 having first & second surfaces parallel to each other (fig. 1); a second steel sheet 1 having first & second surfaces parallel to each other; and a fillet welded part (figs. 1-2), wherein the second steel sheet 1 is placed on the first surface of the first steel sheet 2 such that the first surface of the second steel sheet is perpendicular to the first surface of the first steel sheet to form the T-joint (fig. 1), the fillet welded part joins the first surface of the first steel sheet and the first surface of the second steel sheet to each other (fig. 2), the second steel sheet has an end portion that abuts the first surface of the first steel sheet, the end portion including an inclined surface on a second surface side of the second steel sheet, and in a cross section taken along a sheet thickness direction of the first steel sheet and a sheet thickness direction of the second steel sheet, the inclined surface forms an acute angle with respect to the first surface of the first steel sheet (see fig. 1).
Takatani is silent with respect to a thickness of the second steel sheet and a zinc-based plating on at least one steel sheet. However, such features are known in the art. Nobutoki (also drawn to welding steel sheets) discloses suppressing generation of weld defect when welding zinc-based plated steel sheet by arc and/or laser welding (abstract). Nobutoki teaches that zinc plating provides excellent corrosions resistance (background) and this is also common knowledge in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide zinc-plating to steel sheets surfaces for corrosion resistance and longevity. Nobutoki teaches it has been known to utilize zinc-based plated (galvanized) steel sheet thickness in range of 0.2 to 6.0 mm and widely used in building materials, automotive members, and the like (background- [0002, 0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize steel sheet thickness in a range of about 0.2-6.0 mm in the T-joint of Takatani with the motivation of fabricating a desired automotive member or a structural part for construction, as suggested by Nobutoki.
As to claim 2, Takatani shows that a weld metal of the fillet welded part is exposed in the inclined surface (fig. 2). Nobutoki also shows a T-joint comprising a first steel sheet 1, a second steel sheet 2; and a fillet welded part 3; wherein a weld metal of the fillet welded part is exposed in the inclined surface (fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Takatani as modified by Nobutoki in claim 1 above encompasses the second steel sheet thickness of about 4 mm, which falls within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 4, Nobutoki discloses a T-joint comprising a first steel sheet 1, a second steel sheet 2; and a fillet welded part 3; wherein an abutting end portion of the second steel sheet has an inclined surface and a weld metal of the fillet welded part is exposed in the inclined surface (fig. 3). Nobutoki teaches that such joint prevents occurrence of welding defects such as blow holes or pits; the blowhole occupancy rate is 7% or less (fig. 2; Table 1- column 6; [0034]), which meets recited defect ratio of 30% or less. Naturally, artisan of ordinary skill would also understand that blowhole/pore defect ratio of 5% or less is preferred for good weld quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a fillet weld joint similar to Nobutoki in the T-joint of Takatani because doing so would reduce or prevent occurrence of welding defects such as blow holes or pits, with defect ratio of 10% or less.
As to claim 5, Takatani teaches welded T-joints for steel constructions of buildings, bridges as well as industrial equipment (Background- col. 1, lines 14-20).
Regarding claim 6, Miller discloses a method of manufacturing a T-joint, the method comprising (col. 1, lines 14-20; col. 11, lines 43-50): providing a first steel sheet 2 having first & second surfaces parallel to each other (fig. 1); a second steel sheet 1 having first & second surfaces parallel to each other; and a fillet welded part (figs. 1-2), wherein the second steel sheet 1 is placed on the first surface of the first steel sheet 2 such that the first surface of the second steel sheet is perpendicular to the first surface of the first steel sheet to form the T-joint (fig. 1), the fillet welded part joins the first surface of the first steel sheet and the first surface of the second steel sheet to each other (fig. 2), the second steel sheet has an end portion that abuts the first surface of the first steel sheet, the end portion including an inclined surface on a second surface side of the second steel sheet, and in a cross section taken along a sheet thickness direction of the first steel sheet and a sheet thickness direction of the second steel sheet, the inclined surface forms an acute angle with respect to the first surface of the first steel sheet (see fig. 1).
Takatani is silent with respect to a thickness of the second steel sheet and a zinc-based plating on at least one steel sheet. However, such features are known in the art. Nobutoki (also drawn to welding steel sheets) discloses suppressing generation of weld defect when welding zinc-based plated steel sheet by arc and/or laser welding (abstract). Nobutoki teaches that zinc plating provides excellent corrosions resistance (background) and this is also common knowledge in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide zinc-plating to steel sheets surfaces for corrosion resistance and longevity. Nobutoki teaches it has been known to utilize zinc-based plated (galvanized) steel sheet thickness in range of 0.2 to 6.0 mm and widely used in building materials, automotive members, and the like (background- [0002, 0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize steel sheet thickness in a range of about 0.2-6.0 mm in the T-joint of Takatani with the motivation of fabricating a desired automotive member or a structural part for construction, as suggested by Nobutoki.
As to claim 7, Takatani shows that a weld metal of the fillet welded part is exposed in the inclined surface (fig. 2). Nobutoki also shows a T-joint comprising a first steel sheet 1, a second steel sheet 2; and a fillet welded part 3; wherein a weld metal of the fillet welded part is exposed in the inclined surface (fig. 3).
As to claims 8 and 10, Takatani as modified by Nobutoki in claims 1 & 6 above encompasses the second steel sheet thickness of about 4 mm, which falls within the claimed range.
As to claim 9, Nobutoki shows the second steel sheet 2 placed on the first surface of the first steel sheet 1, wherein in the cross section taken along the sheet thickness direction of the first steel sheet & the second steel sheet, the second steel sheet has another inclined surface in an end portion of the first surface of the second steel sheet on the first steel sheet side, the inclined surface forming an acute angle with respect to the first surface of the first steel sheet (fig. 3). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a second steel sheet including two inclined surfaces on its first and second sides, respectively, in order to provide double-sided fillet weld for effectively joining the first & second steel sheets to each other in the method of Takatani & Nobutoki, as desired for target assembly.
As to claims 11-13, Takatani as modified by Nobutoki above discloses a blowhole/pore defect ratio of 10% or less, which meets the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 14-20, Takatani teaches welded T-joints for steel constructions of buildings, bridges as well as industrial equipment (Background- col. 1, lines 14-20).
As to claim 22, Takatani discloses that the first surface of the first steel sheet 2 and the inclined surface form a valley section and an inclination angle θ of the valley section is 45° (fig. 1; col. 11, line 47-48).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatani in view of Nobutoki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AWS Standard (Structural Welding Code- Steel, 23rd edition, 2015, see attached NPL).
As to claim 21, Takatani discloses that the first surface of the first steel sheet 2 and the inclined surface form a valley section, wherein a depth of the valley section appears to be 10% or more (about 3-5 mm) of the thickness (6 mm) of the second steel sheet 1, see fig. 1 – dimension root face (Rf) is about 1 mm and distance d is about 2 mm (col. 11, line 47-48; col. 12, lines 57-62). This is very close to recited range. The claim would have been obvious since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2144.05. Nonetheless, such groove preparation is known in the welding art. AWS standard (NPL) discloses a single-bevel groove weld as well as double-bevel groove weld applicable to T-joint, wherein a depth of the valley section of the groove is adjustable within desired tolerances, which overlaps with claimed 10-70% of thickness of the steel sheet (see pgs. 65, 99- fig. 3.3, 100). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select any appropriate groove depth within 10-70% of thickness of the steel sheet in the T-joint of Takatani in order to comply with given tolerances for desired weld penetration.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) is based on newly cited reference of Takatani and addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights