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 .
The status of the 12/19/2025 claims, is as follows: Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended; and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draht (US 20150258624) in view of Sigler (US 20170297135) and Wang’568 (US 20080085568)
Regarding Claim 1, Draht discloses a method for welding (title) comprising:
arranging an aluminum component (component 20 i.e. aluminum) adjacent to a steel component (component 30 i.e. steel) (para. 0043);
arranging a rivet (joining part 10) in the aluminum component, the rivet including a head and a stem (annotated fig. 9), the rivet being in contact with the steel component (component 30) (annotated fig. 9);
using a weld tool (electrode punch 40) including an electrode (electrode punch 40) configured to engage the rivet (joining part 10) (it is noted the 40 and 50 are electrically connected to the joining part 10) (para. 0064),
applying pressure on the rivet (joining part 10) using the electrode (“mechanical load is applied by a punch, preferably an electrode punch 40, on the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0060; fig. 6); and
applying current to the electrode (electrode punch 40) to weld the rivet to the component 20 and the component 30 (para. 0060; fig. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Draht does not disclose the weld tool includes arms configured to engage the rivet.
However, Sigler discloses the weld tool (welding gun arms 18, 20 and respective electrodes 24, 28) include arms (arms 18, 20) (para. 0025 and 0023; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
302
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weld tool of Draht to include the arms as taught by Sigler, in order to mount the respective electrodes as known in the art to perform resistance welding. The modification would result in the structure, in which the weld tool includes the arms configured to electrically engage the rivet.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose the method comprising:
the aluminum component including a pre-formed cavity having an inner annular surface adjacent to the steel component;
arranging the rivet in the pre-formed cavity, the stem having an annular outer surface spaced from the inner annular surface of the pre-formed cavity forming an annular volume, and
wherein a volume of a portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the annular volume between the stem of the rivet and the inner annular surface of the pre-formed cavity.
However, Wang’568 discloses a method for welding comprising:
a first metallic component (first metallic member 12) including a pre-formed cavity (hole 26B) having an inner surface adjacent to a second metallic component (second metallic member 14) (figs. 4a-4b);
arranging the rivet (slug 28B) in the pre-formed cavity (hole 26B) (para. 0025), the rivet including a head and a stem (annotated fig. 4b) having an outer surface spaced from the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity forming an volume (“ the slug 28B is positioned or spaced in close proximity to the hole 26B”, para. 0026), and
wherein a volume of a portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the volume between the stem of the rivet and the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity (according to the published specification of the instant application para. 0026, the limitation “a volume of a portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to a volume between a stem of the rivet and an inner surface of the pre-formed cavity” means the volume of the rivet is approximately equal to the volume in the cavity in the aluminum component (emphasis added). As can be seen in figs. 4a-4b, para. 0025-0026 of Draht, the volume of slug 28B is approximately equal to the volume in the cavity of component 12. It is the examiner’s position that as long as the volume of the rivet is more or less equal to the volume in the cavity because of the term “approximately”, it meets the claim limitation).
PNG
media_image4.png
260
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum component of Draht (i.e. component 20 of Draht) to include the pre-formed cavity to receive the rivet (i.e. joining part 10) such that the volume of the portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the volume between the stem of the rivet and the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity as taught by Wang’568. Doing so would speed up the welding process because the cavity is pre-formed in the aluminum component and the cavity is configured in such a manner that its volume is approximately equal to the volume of the rivet in order to ensure the two components and the rivet are sufficiently welded together with high strength (para. 0025-0026 of Wang’568).
The modification does not disclose the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity is annular, the stem having the annular outer surface, and the volume formed between the stem and the cavity is annular.
However, Wang’568 further discloses in another embodiment in figs. 2a-2b the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity is annular (hole 26) and the stem of the rivet having annular surface (shaft portion 30) (para. 0021-0022), and the volume formed between the stem and the cavity is annular.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity of Draht in view of Sigler and Wang’568 to be annular and modify the stem of the rivet to have the annular outer surface as further taught by Wang’568 that results in the annular volume between the stem and the cavity, in order to provide the pre-formed cavity having the annular surface in the aluminum component to receive the rivet having annular surface such that the two components are effectively joined using the rivet having annular outer surface.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses the method for welding (title) further comprising:
after a first predetermined period after applying current to the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht), retracting the arms of the weld tool (arms 18, 20 of Sigler) (para. 0064 of Draht and “the electrode punch 40 and the electrode die 50 are removed from the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0066; fig. 6, step e of Draht); and
PNG
media_image5.png
464
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
continuing to apply current to the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) for a second predetermined period after the first predetermined period (para. 0080; fig. 9. It is noted after the rivet 10 is inserted into component 20 during the first predetermined period, the component 20 is resistance-welded to component 30 during the second predetermined period).
PNG
media_image6.png
346
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the first predetermined period comprises 1/10 to 1/5 of a total period including the first predetermined period and the second predetermined period.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the first predetermined period comprises 1/10 to 1/5 of a total period including the first predetermined period and the second predetermined period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the rivet 10 is adequately welded to the component 20 in the first predetermined period and the component 20 is adequately welded to the component 30 in the second predetermined period.
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses the method further comprising after applying pressure on the rivet (rivet 10 of Draht) using the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) and before applying current (para. 0080; fig. 9 of Draht), retracting the arms of the weld tool (arms 18, 20 of Sigler) (“the electrode punch 40 and the electrode die 50 are removed from the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0066; of Draht; fig. 6, step e)) (it is noted before the electrode punch 40 applies the current to weld the two components 20, 30, the arms are removed as shown in fig. 6 step e)).
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the rivet (joining part 10 of Draht) is made of carbon coated steel (“the welding auxiliary joining part is formed in the shape of a stud of weldable material, as for example steel having a carbon equivalent of 0.2 to 0.8, preferably of 0.3 to 0.6.”, para. 0019 of Draht).
The modification does not disclose the rivet having an ultimate tensile strength in a predetermined range between 1000 MPa and 1500 MPa.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the rivet having an ultimate tensile strength in a predetermined range between 1000 MPa and 1500 MPa, is a merely design choice to achieve desired strength for welding application.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), and Wang’568 (US 20080085568) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Spinella (US 20160167158)
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the rivet includes a coating on a head of the rivet in contact with the electrode of the weld tool, wherein the coating reduces a resistance between the electrode and the head of the rivet.
However, Spinella discloses a head of the rivet (fastener 1810) in contact with the electrode of the weld tool (electrode head 1815) includes a coating (first layer 1810s made of copper) (para. 0188; figs. 30-31).
PNG
media_image7.png
402
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head of the rivet of Draht in contact with the electrode of the weld tool to include the coating (i.e. first layer 1810s made of copper) because copper would exhibit good heat transfer and low electrode wear (para. 0188 of Spinella).
The modification would result in the structure shown below, in which the coating (i.e. layer 1810s made of copper) is disposed between the rivet (i.e. joining part 10 made of steel, para. 0019 of Draht) and the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht). Copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel, provided as evidence disclosed by non-patent literature below. Having the copper layer between the steel rivet and the electrode would reduce resistance between the electrode and the head of the rivet (para. 0188; figs. 30-31 of Spinella) (provided as an evidence, non-patent literature to Science Notes, “Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity”, published on 01/16/2019, discloses copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel).
PNG
media_image8.png
906
1374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except a resistance between the electrode and the rivet is less than a resistance between the rivet and the steel component.
However, Spinella discloses a head of the rivet (fastener 1810) in contact with the electrode of the weld tool (electrode head 1815) includes a coating (first layer 1810s made of copper) that is in contact with the electrode (para. 0188; figs. 30-31).
PNG
media_image7.png
402
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head of the rivet of Draht in contact with the electrode of the weld tool to include the coating (i.e. first layer 1810s made of copper) because copper would exhibit good heat transfer and low electrode wear (para. 0188 of Spinella).
The modification would result in the structure shown below, in which the coating made of copper (i.e. first layer 1810s made of copper of Spinella) disposed between the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) and the outer surface of the rivet (joining part 10 made of steel, para. 0019 of Draht). The resistance between the electrode and the rivet is the resistance of the copper of Spinella and the resistance between the rivet and the steel component is the resistance of steel.
According to non-patent literature to Science Notes, “Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity”, published on 01/16/2019, discloses copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel, therefore the resistance between the electrode and the rivet is less than the resistance between the rivet and the steel component.
PNG
media_image8.png
906
1374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), and Wang’568 (US 20080085568) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Koenig (US 5729463)
Regarding Claim 8, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the aluminum component comprises an Al body side outer (BSO) and the steel component comprises a body in white (BIW) support structure.
However, Koenig discloses the aluminum component comprises an Al body side outer (BSO) (body side outer panels) (col. 16,1 lines 13-18, 39-41 respectively) and the steel component comprises a body in white (BIW) support structure (col. 1, 2 lines 50-56, 14-16 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum component of Draht in view of Sigler and Wang’568 to comprise the Al body side outer and to modify the steel component to comprise the body in white support structure as taught by Koenig, in order to the weld the body side outer and the body in white support structure together that has applications in automobile bodies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), and Wang’568 (US 20080085568) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Sigler’986 (US 20140360986)
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the st
However, Sigler’986 discloses the st
Regarding the limitation the AHSS having a tensile strength greater than 980MPa, it is noted that prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel component of Draht in view of Sigler and Wang’568 to comprise advanced high strength steel (AHSS) as taught by Sigler’986, in order to weld the steel having high strength for desired welding application.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), and Wang’568 (US 20080085568) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wang’821 (US 20210069821)
Regarding Claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the head of the rivet has a frustoconical shape; and
sides of the head of the rivet form an angle in a range from 30° to 60° relative to the annular outer surface of the stem
However, Wang’821discloses a head of the rivet (head 26) has a frustoconical shape (para. 0025; fig. 2A); and sides of the head of the rivet form an angle relative to the annular outer surface of the stem (annotated fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image9.png
440
734
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rivet of Draht with the rivet of Wang’821 because it involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to utilize the rivet to weld two dissimilar components together.
The modification does not disclose the angle formed between the sides of the head of the rivet relative to the annular outer surface of the stem in a range from 30° to 60°.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the range from 30° to 60° is merely a design choice. The rivet of Wang’821 would be expected to perform equally well to weld the two components of dissimilar materials.
Regarding Claim 11, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except an end of the electrode that contacts the rivet is larger than a diameter of a head of the rivet.
However, Wang’821 discloses an end of the electrode (first electrode 36) that contacts the rivet (rivet 24) is larger than a diameter of a head of the rivet (head 26 of rivet 24) (fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image10.png
392
528
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Draht in view of Sigler and Wang’568 (i.e. modify the electrode punch 40 of Draht) such that it is larger than the diameter of the head of the rivet as further taught by Wang, in order to ensure the electrode has greater contact surface with the rivet to push the rivet into the component.
Claims 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draht (US 20150258624), in view of Sigler (US 20170297135), Wang’568 (US 20080085568), Wang’821 (US 20210069821), and Spinella (US 20160167158)
Regarding Claim 12, Draht discloses a method for welding (title) comprising:
arranging an aluminum component (component 20 i.e. aluminum) adjacent to a steel component (component 30 i.e. steel);
arranging a rivet (joining part 10) in the aluminum component, the rivet including a head and a stem extending from the head (annotated fig. 9), the stem being in contact with the steel component (component 30) (annotated fig. 9);
using a weld tool (electrode punch 40, electrode die 50) including an electrode (electrode punch 40) configured to engage the head of the rivet (joining part 10) (it is noted the 40 and 50 are electrically connected to the joining part 10) (para. 0064; fig. 9),
applying pressure on the rivet (joining part 10) using the electrode (“mechanical load is applied by a punch, preferably an electrode punch 40, on the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0060; fig. 6); and
applying current to the electrode (electrode punch 40) to weld the rivet (para. 0060; fig. 6).
Draht does not disclose:
the weld tool includes arms configured to engage the rivet.
However, Sigler discloses the weld tool (welding gun arms 18, 20 and respective electrodes 24, 28) include arms (arms 18, 20) (para. 0025 and 0023; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
302
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the weld tool of Draht to include the arms as taught by Sigler, in order to mount the respective electrodes to perform resistance welding. The modification would result in the structure, in which the weld tool includes the arms configured to electrically engage the rivet.
PNG
media_image3.png
456
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose:
the aluminum component including a pre-formed cavity having an inner annular surface adjacent to the steel component;
arranging the rivet in the pre-formed cavity, the stem including an outer annular surface that is spaced from the inner annular surface of the pre-formed cavity forming an annular volume, and
wherein a volume of a portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the annular volume between the outer annular surface of the stem and the inner annular surface of the pre-formed cavity.
However, Wang’568 discloses a method for welding comprising:
a first metallic component (first metallic member 12) including a pre-formed cavity (hole 26B) having an inner surface adjacent to a second metallic component (second metallic member 14) (figs. 4a-4b);
arranging the rivet (slug 28B) in the pre-formed cavity (hole 26B) (para. 0025), the rivet including a head and a stem extending from the head (annotated fig. 4b), the stem including an outer surface spaced from the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity forming an volume (“ the slug 28B is positioned or spaced in close proximity to the hole 26B”, para. 0026), and
wherein a volume of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the volume between the outer surface of the stem and the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity (according to the published specification of the instant application para. 0026, the limitation “a volume of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the volume between the outer surface of the stem and the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity” means the volume of the rivet is approximately equal to the volume in the cavity in the aluminum component. As can be seen in figs. 4a-4b, para. 0025-0026 of Wang’568, the volume of slug 28B is approximately equal to the volume in the cavity of component 12. It is the examiner’s position that as long as the volume of the rivet is more or less equal to the volume in the cavity because of the term “approximately”, it meets the claim limitation).
PNG
media_image4.png
260
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum component of Draht (i.e. component 20 of Draht) to include the pre-formed cavity to receive the rivet (i.e. joining part 10 of Draht) such that the volume of the portion of the rivet located above of the pre-formed cavity is approximately equal to the volume between the stem of the rivet and the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity as taught by Wang’568. Doing so would speed up the welding process because the cavity is pre-formed in the aluminum component and the cavity is configured in such a manner that its volume is approximately equal to the volume of the rivet in order to ensure the two components and the rivet are sufficiently welded together with high strength (para. 0025-0026 of Wang’568).
The modification does not disclose the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity is annular, the stem having the annular outer surface, and the volume formed between the stem and the cavity is annular.
However, Wang’568 further discloses in another embodiment in figs. 2a-2b the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity is annular (hole 26) and the stem of the rivet having annular surface (shaft portion 30) (para. 0021-0022), and the volume formed between the stem and the cavity is annular.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner surface of the pre-formed cavity of Draht in view of Sigler and Wang’568 to be annular and modify the stem of the rivet to have the annular outer surface that results in the annular volume between the stem and the cavity as further taught by Wang’568, in order to provide the pre-formed cavity having the annular surface in the aluminum component to receive the rivet having annular surface such that the two components are effectively joined using the rivet having annular outer surface.
The modification does not disclose:
the head of the rivet has a frustoconical shape; and
wherein sides of the head of the rivet form an angle in a range from 30° to 60° relative to the outer annular surface of the stem.
However, Wang’821discloses a head of the rivet (head 26) has a frustoconical shape (para. 0025; fig. 2A);
wherein sides of the head of the rivet form an angle relative to the outer annular surface of the stem (annotated fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image9.png
440
734
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rivet of Draht with the rivet of Wang’821 because it involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result, which is to utilize the rivet to weld two dissimilar components together.
The modification does not disclose the angle formed between the sides of the head of the rivet relative to the annular outer surface of the stem in a range from 30° to 60°.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the range from 30° to 60° is merely a design choice. The rivet of Wang’821 would be expected to perform equally well to weld the two components of dissimilar materials.
The modification does not disclose a head of the rivet in contact with the electrode of the weld tool includes a coating to reduce a resistance between the electrode and the head of the rivet.
However, Spinella discloses a head of the rivet (fastener 1810) in contact with the electrode of the weld tool (electrode head 1815) includes a coating (first layer 1810s made of copper) that is in contact with the electrode (para. 0188; figs. 30-31).
PNG
media_image7.png
402
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head of the rivet of Draht in contact with the electrode of the weld tool to include the coating (i.e. first layer 1810s made of copper) because copper would exhibit good heat transfer and low electrode wear (para. 0188 of Spinella).
The modification would result in the structure shown below, in which the coating (i.e. layer 1810s made of copper) is disposed between the rivet (i.e. joining part 10 made of steel, para. 0019 of Draht) and the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht). Copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel, provided as evidence by non-patent literature below. Having the copper layer between the steel rivet and the electrode would reduce resistance between the electrode and the head of the rivet (para. 0188; figs. 30-31 of Spinella) (provided as an evidence, non-patent literature to Science Notes, “Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity”, published on 01/16/2019, discloses copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel).
PNG
media_image8.png
906
1374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses the method for welding (title) further comprising:
after a first predetermined period after applying current to the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht), retracting the arms of the weld tool (arms 18, 20 of Sigler) (para. 0064 and “the electrode punch 40 and the electrode die 50 are removed from the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0066; fig. 6, step e of Draht); and
PNG
media_image5.png
464
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
continuing to apply current to the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) for a second predetermined period after the first predetermined period (para. 0080; fig. 9. It is noted after the rivet 10 is inserted into component 20 during the first predetermined period, the component 20 is resistance-welded to component 30 during the second predetermined period).
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the first predetermined period comprises 1/10 to 1/5 of a total period including the first predetermined period and the second predetermined period.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the first predetermined period comprises 1/10 to 1/5 of a total period including the first predetermined period and the second predetermined period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the rivet 10 is adequately welded to the component 20 in the first predetermined period and the component 20 is adequately welded to the component 30 in the second predetermined period.
PNG
media_image6.png
346
576
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, the modification discloses the method further comprising after applying pressure on the rivet (rivet 10 of Draht) using the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) and before applying current (para. 0080; fig. 9), retracting the arms of the weld tool (arms 18, 20 of Sigler) (“the electrode punch 40 and the electrode die 50 are removed from the welding auxiliary joining part 10”, para. 0066; of Draht; fig. 6, step e)) (it is noted before the electrode punch 40 applies the current to weld the two components 20, 30, the arms are removed as shown in fig. 6 step e)).
Regarding Claim 16, the modification discloses the method, wherein the resistance between the electrode (electrode punch 40 of Draht) and the rivet (joining part 10 of Draht) is less than a resistance between the rivet (joining part 10 of Draht made of steel) and the steel component (component 30 i.e. steel of Draht) (based on rejection to claim 12, the first layer 1810s made of copper of Spinella disposed between the electrode and the outer surface of the rivet, therefore the resistance between the electrode and the rivet is the resistance of copper. The resistance between the rivet (i.e. joining part 10 made of steel) and the steel component is the resistance of steel. The resistance of copper is less than the resistance of steel (provided as evidence, according to non-patent literature to Science Notes, “Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity”, published on 01/16/2019, discloses copper has lower electrical resistivity than steel).
PNG
media_image8.png
906
1374
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, wherein the rivet (joining part 10) is made of carbon coated steel (“the welding auxiliary joining part is formed in the shape of stud of weldable material, as for example steel having a carbon equivalent of 0.2 to 0.8, preferably of 0.3 to 0.6.”, para. 0019 of Draht).
The modification does not disclose the rivet having an ultimate tensile strength in a predetermined range between 1000 MPa and 1500 MPa.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the rivet having an ultimate tensile strength in a predetermined range between 1000 MPa and 1500 MPa, is a merely design choice to achieve desired strength for welding application.
Regarding Claim 20, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except an end of the electrode that contacts the rivet is larger than a diameter of a head of the rivet.
However, Wang’821 further discloses an end of the electrode (first electrode 36) that contacts the rivet (rivet 24) is larger than a diameter of a head of the rivet (head 26 of rivet 24) (fig. 2B).
PNG
media_image10.png
392
528
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Draht (i.e. modify the electrode punch 40 of Draht) such that it is larger than the diameter of the head of the rivet as further taught by Wang, in order to ensure the electrode has greater contact surface with the rivet to push the rivet into the component.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), Wang’568 (US 20080085568), Wang’821 (US 20210069821), and Spinella (US 20160167158) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Koenig (US 5729463)
Regarding Claim 18, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the aluminum component comprises an Al body side outer (BSO) and the steel component comprises a body in white (BIW) support structure.
However, Koenig discloses the aluminum component comprises an Al body side outer (BSO) (body side outer panels) (col. 16,1 lines 13-18, 39-41 respectively) and the steel component comprises a body in white (BIW) support structure (col. 1, 2 lines 50-56, 14-16 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aluminum component of Draht in view of Sigler, Wang, and Imamura to comprise the Al body side outer and to modify the steel component to comprise the body in white support structure as taught by Koenig, in order to the weld the body side outer and the body in white support structure together that has applications in automobile bodies.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Draht (US 20150258624), Sigler (US 20170297135), Wang’568 (US 20080085568), Wang’821 (US 20210069821), and Spinella (US 20160167158) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Sigler’986 (US 20140360986)
Regarding Claim 19, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except wherein the st
However, Sigler’986 discloses the st
Regarding the limitation the AHSS having a tensile strength greater than 980MPa, it is noted that prior art teaches all the structure limitation of the claim already, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claim, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel component of Draht to comprise advanced high strength steel (AHSS) as taught by Sigler’986, in order to weld the steel having high strength for desired welding application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections filed on 12/19/2025, have been fully considered but are respectfully considered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761