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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is molybdenum alloy” should be –is a molybdenum alloy--. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 23-26, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rosal et al. (2010/0038832A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosal discloses a friction stir welding tool, the friction stir welding tool comprising: a pin and a shoulder (shown below) having a contact surface that is configured to contact the parent material, wherein the shoulder is rigidly connected to the pin, wherein the shoulder (shown below) comprises a first partial region (shown below), extending across less than the entire width of the shoulder, composed of a first material and a second partial region, extending across the width of the shoulder from the first partial region to the pin, composed of a second material, wherein the pin is at least partially composed of the second material (figure 6, paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024).
The limitation “for welding components composed of a parent material formed of steel that has a melting point of over 900 °C” is intended use and is dependent on the material worked upon and does not further limit the friction stir welding tool.
The limitation “wherein the first partial region and the second partial region define the contact surface, and wherein the first material is configured to have a first coefficient of kinetic friction when in contact with a surface of the parent material and the second material is configured to have a second coefficient of kinetic friction, which is lower than the first coefficient of kinetic friction when in contact with the surface of the parent material” is functional and does not further limit the tool. Since the prior art teaches similar materials to materials in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the prior art meets the claimed functional limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
659
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the first material has a melting temperature of more than 900 °C.
Regarding claim 3, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the wherein the second material has a melting temperature of more than 900 °C.
Regarding claim 4, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the first material and the second material have different strengths.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the first material has a lower chemical affinity to the parent material than the second material” is based on the material worked upon and the material worked upon does not further limit the friction stir welding tool.
Regarding claims 7, 26, Rosal discloses that the friction stir welding tool has a shaft which comprises a third material. The shank is separated by the fsw tool by a thermal barrier 46; therefore; there would have to be a third material as the shank is separate from the fsw tool and the collar (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 9, Rosal discloses that the second material contains tungsten (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 23, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the first material has a melting temperature of more than 2000 °C.
Regarding claim 24, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the wherein the second material has a melting temperature of more than 2000 °C.
Regarding claim 25, since Rosal discloses similar materials (paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024) as stated in the current specification, it is the Examiner’s position that the wherein the second material has a melting temperature of more than 3000 °C.
Regarding claim 31, Rosal discloses a friction stir welding tool, the friction stir welding tool comprising: a pin and a shoulder (shown above) having a contact surface that is configured to contact the parent material, wherein the shoulder is rigidly connected to the pin, wherein the shoulder comprises a first partial region (shown above), extending across less than the entire width of the shoulder, composed of a first material (shown above) and a second partial region, extending across the width of the shoulder from the first partial region to the pin, composed of a second material, wherein the pin is at least partially composed of the second material (shown above), wherein the first partial region and the second partial region define the contact surface, and wherein the first material and the second material have different strengths (figure 6, paragraphs 0007, 0021-0024).
The limitation “for welding components composed of a parent material formed of steel that has a melting point of over 900 °C” is intended use and is dependent on the material worked upon and does not further limit the friction stir welding tool.
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) 8, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal et al. (2010/0038832A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morrow, III et al. (3,854,941).
Regarding claim 8, Rosal discloses nickel-based superalloy for the first material (higher thermal expansion), but does not disclose that the first material contains molybdenum. However, Morrow discloses a nickel-based superalloy that includes 12-20% molybdenum (abstract). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known superalloy as taught by Morrow because Morrow states that it has the benefits of excellent elevated-temperature strength properties and excellent resistance to oxidation (abstract).
Regarding claim 27, Rosal discloses nickel-based superalloy for the first material (higher thermal expansion), but does not disclose that the first material contains a molybdenum alloy. However, Morrow discloses a nickel-based superalloy that includes 12-20% molybdenum (molybdenum alloy) (abstract). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a known superalloy as taught by Morrow because Morrow states that it has the benefits of excellent elevated-temperature strength properties and excellent resistance to oxidation (abstract).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosal et al. (2010/0038832A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (CN109082617A) with support provided by Savitskii et al. (“Properties of Tungsten-Rhenium Alloys”, Institute for Metallurgy, Ac, Sc. USSR and Moscow Lamp Works, September, 1960).
Regarding claim 28, Rosal discloses that the second material can be tungsten or rhenium, but does not specifically state tungsten-rhenium (paragraph 0021). However, Huang discloses a friction stir welding tool with a shoulder and pin made of tungsten-rhenium (see English translation). As shown in Savitskii, tungsten-rhenium has improved strength at high temperatures and increased hardness (see pages 485-486). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use tungsten-rhenium as the second material for the known mechanical properties of increased hardness and improved strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 23-28, 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights