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 .
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 11-13, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG (KR 101298228 B1) in view of TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) and PARK (KR 20160013655 A).
Regarding claim 1, KANG (KR 101298228 B1) teaches an opposing electrode determination method for determining whether a combination of a pair of opposing electrodes is correct or incorrect (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 35, gap measuring means for measuring the gap of the end of the welding tip inserted into the inspection groove such as to determine whether the welding tips are dressed in accurate form), the opposing electrode determination method comprising:
a step of moving the pair of opposing electrodes (welding tips of the spot welder) toward a held member (Figure 5, inspection block 20) formed with receiving portions on both sides (Figure 5 Paragraph 45, inspection groove 21 formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block 20 into which the end of the welding tips of the spot welder is inserted), the receiving portions allowing insertion of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 37, the end of the welding tips of opposing electrodes are inserted into the inspection grooves 21);
a step of inserting the pair of opposing electrodes into the receiving portions, respectively, by holding the held member between the pair of opposing electrodes (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 37, the end of the welding tips of opposing electrodes are inserted into the inspection grooves 21 such that the inspection block is held between said electrodes);
a step of measuring an inter-electrode distance between the pair of opposing electrodes (Paragraph 35, gap measuring means for measuring the gap of the end of the welding tips inserted into the inspection groove 21); and
a step of determining, based on the inter-electrode distance, whether the combination is correct or incorrect (Paragraphs 35-39, the detected gap value is compared with a reference value to determine whether the welding tip is dressed in an accurate form),
KANG as modified fails to explicitly teach:
a held member secured at a predetermined location
wherein the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes, respectively, according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes.
TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) teaches a spot-welding electrode inspection device, wherein:
a held member secured at a predetermined location (Paragraph 21, camera unit is attachable to another device 9 by the bracket portion 22)1
wherein the receiving portions are configured to have insertion allowances according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Figure 4 Paragraph 24, inner peripheral surfaces of the fixing holes correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes).
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 KANG with TEZAWA and have the gap measuring means be connected to another device such as to secure it at a location. This would have been done to support said gap measuring device during the method.
It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with TEZAWA and have the receiving portions of the gap measuring means correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes. This would have been done to securely fix the electrode tips within the gap measuring means during detection (TEZAWA Paragraph 24).
While KANG modified with TEZAWA fails to explicitly teach “the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes”, PARK (KR 20160013655 A) teaches an apparatus comprising a jig having hole for alignment of welding rods for spot welding wherein the upper and lower welding rods have cross sections which are of different sizes (PARK Paragraph 11) wherein a first hole and a second hole of the alignment jig are formed of shapes and sizes corresponding to the tip portions of the upper and lower welding rod respectively (PARK Paragraph 81). It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with PARK and have the gap measuring means be configured to have different insertion allowance for opposing electrodes. This would have been done to facilitate the use of differently shaped electrodes, which benefits include, but are not limited to, assisting in welding dissimilar material as evidenced by Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) and controlling an indentation depth of an electrode into a metal surface as evidenced by Wang (US 20110253681 A1).
Regarding claim 2, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 1.
Park further teaches:
the pair of opposing electrodes have mutually different vertical cross sections (Paragraph 81, first and second holes of the alignment jig are formed of shapes and sizes which correspond to the tip portions of the upper and lower welding rod; Figure 5 Paragraph 70, diameter of the first hole is smaller than the diameter of the second hole which means that the first welding rod 510 is smaller than the diameter of the second welding rod 520; vertical cross section would have different width as the diameter of the welding rods is different).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that the use of differently shaped electrodes, which would have mutually different vertical cross sections, is well known in the art as evidenced by Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) and Wang (US 20110253681 A1).
Regarding claim 4, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 1, wherein,
one of the receiving portions (one of the top and bottom inspection grooves), which is formed on one side of the held member, is a first receiving portion, and the receiving portion formed on the other side of the held member is a second receiving portion (Figures 9-10 Paragraphs 15-23, the inspection grooves are formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block), and the first and second receiving portions comprise recesses which are open toward mutually opposite directions (Figure 5, grooves are formed in the upper and lower surfaces and are open in mutually opposite directions), and
a bottom of the recess constituting the first receiving portion and a bottom of the recess constituting the second receiving portion communicate via a through-hole (Figure 5 Paragraph 30, connecting hold 22 is formed inside the inspection block to connect the inner bottom surface of each of the inspection grooves).
Regarding claim 5, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 1, wherein,
each of the pair of opposing electrodes comprises of a rod-shaped electrode for spot welding (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, welding tips 11; Paragraph 14, spot welding machine; Figure 5, welding tips are opposing cylindrically shaped electrodes).
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 opposing electrodes be rod-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, the Office notes that having opposing electrodes for spot welding be cylindrical and thus rod-shaped is well known in the art as evidenced by Yang (US 20150231729 A1).
Regarding claim 7, KANG (KR 101298228 B1) teaches an opposing electrode determination device for determining whether a combination of a pair of opposing electrodes is correct or incorrect (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 35, gap measuring means for measuring the gap of the end of the welding tip inserted into the inspection groove such as to determine whether the welding tip is dressed in an accurate form), the opposing electrode determination device comprising
a held member (Figure 5, inspection block 20) with receiving portions on both sides (Figure 5 Paragraph 45, inspection groove 21 formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block 20 into which the end of the welding tip of the spot welder is inserted), the receiving portions allowing insertion of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 37, the end of the welding tips of opposing electrodes are inserted into the inspection grooves 21), by executing:
a step of inserting the pair of opposing electrodes into the receiving portions, respectively, by holding the held member between the pair of opposing electrodes (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 37, the end of the welding tips of opposing electrodes are inserted into the inspection grooves 21 such that the inspection block is held between said electrodes);
a step of measuring an inter-electrode distance between the pair of opposing electrodes (Paragraph 35, gap measuring means for measuring the gap of the end of the welding tips inserted into the inspection groove 21); and
a step of determining, based on the inter-electrode distance, whether the combination is correct or incorrect (Paragraphs 35-39, the detected gap value is compared with a reference value to determine whether the welding tip is dressed in an accurate form)
KANG as modified fails to explicitly teach:
a held member secured at a predetermined location
the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes, respectively, according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes.
TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) teaches a spot-welding electrode inspection device, wherein:
a held member secured at a predetermined location (Paragraph 21, camera unit is attachable to another device 9 by the bracket portion 22)2
the receiving portions are configured to different insertion allowances according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Paragraph 24, inner peripheral surfaces of the fixing holes correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes).
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 KANG with TEZAWA and have the gap measuring means be connected to another device such as to secure it at a location. This would have been done to support said gap measuring device during the method.
It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with TEZAWA and have the receiving portions of the gap measuring means correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes. This would have been done to securely fix the electrode tips within the gap measuring means during detection (TEZAWA Paragraph 24).
While KANG modified with TEZAWA fails to explicitly teach “the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes”, PARK (KR 20160013655 A) teaches an apparatus comprising a jig having hole for alignment of welding rods for spot welding wherein the upper and lower welding rods have cross sections which are of different sizes (PARK Paragraph 11) wherein a first hole and a second hole of the alignment jig are formed of shapes and sizes corresponding to the tip portions of the upper and lower welding rod respectively (PARK Paragraph 81). It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with PARK and have the gap measuring means be configured to have different insertion allowance for opposing electrodes. This would have been done to facilitate the use of differently shaped electrodes which benefits include, but are not limited to, assisting in welding dissimilar material as evidenced by Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) and controlling an indentation depth of an electrode into a metal surface as evidenced by Wang (US 20110253681 A1).
Regarding claim 8, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination device according to claim 7, wherein
one of the receiving portions (one of the top and bottom inspection grooves), which is formed on one side of the held member, is a first receiving portion, and the receiving portion formed on the other side of the held member is a second receiving portion (Figures 9-10 Paragraphs 15-23, the inspection grooves are formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block), and the first and second receiving portions comprise recesses which are open toward mutually opposite directions (Figure 5, grooves are formed in the upper and lower surfaces and are open in mutually opposite directions), and
a bottom of the recess constituting the first receiving portion and a bottom of the recess constituting the second receiving portion communicate via a through-hole (Figure 5 Paragraph 30, connecting hold 22 is formed inside the inspection block to connect the inner bottom surface of the inspection grooves).
Regarding claim 9, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination device according to claim 7, wherein
each of the pair of opposing electrodes comprises a rod-shaped electrode for spot welding (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, welding tips 11; Paragraph 14, spot welding machine; Figure 5, welding tips are opposing cylindrically shaped electrodes).
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 opposing electrodes be rod-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, the Office notes that having opposing electrodes for spot welding be cylindrical and thus rod-shaped is well known in the art as evidenced by Yang (US 20150231729 A1).
Regarding claim 11, KANG (KR 101298228 B1) teaches a jig for use in determining whether a combination of a pair of opposing electrodes is correct or incorrect (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 35, gap measuring means for measuring the gap of the end of the welding tip inserted into the inspection groove such as to determine whether the welding tip is dressed in an accurate form), the jig comprising
a held member (Figure 5, inspection block 20) formed with receiving portions on both sides (Figure 5 Paragraph 45, inspection groove 21 formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block 20 into which the end of the welding tip of the spot welder is inserted), the receiving portions allowing insertion of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Figures 9-10 Paragraph 37, the end of the welding tips of opposing electrodes are inserted into the inspection grooves 21),
KANG as modified fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes, respectively, according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes.
TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) teaches a spot-welding electrode inspection device, wherein:
wherein the receiving portions are configured to have insertion allowances according to a tip shape of each of the pair of opposing electrodes, respectively (Paragraph 24, inner peripheral surfaces of the fixing holes correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes)3.
It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with TEZAWA and have the receiving portions of the gap measuring means correspond to the shape of the tip-end sides of the electrodes. This would have been done to securely fix the electrode tips within the gap measuring means during detection (TEZAWA Paragraph 24).
While KANG modified with TEZAWA fails to explicitly teach “the receiving portions are configured to have different insertion allowances for the opposing electrodes”, PARK (KR 20160013655 A) teaches an apparatus comprising a jig having hole for alignment of welding rods for spot welding wherein the upper and lower welding rods have cross sections which are of different sizes (PARK Paragraph 11) wherein a first hole and a second hole of the alignment jig are formed of shapes and sizes corresponding to the tip portions of the upper and lower welding rod respectively (PARK Paragraph 81). It further would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KANG with PARK and have the gap measuring means be configured to have different insertion allowance for opposing electrodes. This would have been done to facilitate the use of differently shaped electrodes which benefits include, but are not limited to, assisting in welding dissimilar material as evidenced by Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) and controlling an indentation depth of an electrode into a metal surface as evidenced by Wang (US 20110253681 A1).
Regarding claim 12, KANG as modified teaches the jig according to claim 11, wherein
one of the receiving portions (one of the top and bottom inspection grooves), which is formed on one side of the held member, is a first receiving portion, and the receiving portion formed on the other side of the held member is a second receiving portion (Figures 9-10 Paragraphs 15-23, the inspection grooves are formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block), and the first and second receiving portions comprise recesses which are open toward mutually opposite directions Figure 5, grooves are formed in the upper and lower surfaces and are open in mutually opposite directions), and
a bottom of the recess constituting the first receiving portion and a bottom of the recess constituting the second receiving portion communicate via a through-hole (Figure 5 Paragraph 30, connecting hold 22 is formed inside the inspection block to connect the inner bottom surface of each of the inspection grooves).
Regarding claim 13, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 2, wherein
one of the receiving portions (one of the top and bottom inspection grooves), which is formed on one side of the held member, is a first receiving portion, and the receiving portion formed on the other side of the held member is a second receiving portion (Figures 9-10 Paragraphs 15-23, the inspection grooves are formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block), and the first and second receiving portions comprise recesses which are open toward mutually opposite directions (Figure 5, grooves are formed in the upper and lower surfaces and are open in mutually opposite directions), and
a bottom of the recess constituting the first receiving portion and a bottom of the recess constituting the second receiving portion communicate via a through-hole (Figure 5 Paragraph 30, connecting hold 22 is formed inside the inspection block to connect the inner bottom surface of the inspection grooves).
Regarding claim 17, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 4, wherein,
each of the pair of opposing electrodes comprises a rod-shaped electrode for spot welding (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, welding tips 11; Paragraph 14, spot welding machine; Figure 5, welding tips are opposing cylindrically shaped electrodes).
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 opposing electrodes be rod-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, the Office notes that having opposing electrodes for spot welding be cylindrical and thus rod-shaped is well known in the art as evidenced by Yang (US 20150231729 A1).
Regarding claim 19, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 8, wherein,
each of the pair of opposing electrodes comprises a rod-shaped electrode for spot welding (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, welding tips 11; Paragraph 14, spot welding machine; Figure 5, welding tips are opposing cylindrically shaped electrodes).
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 opposing electrodes be rod-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, the Office notes that having opposing electrodes for spot welding be cylindrical and thus rod-shaped is well known in the art as evidenced by Yang (US 20150231729 A1).
Claim(s) 3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG (KR 101298228 B1) in view of TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) and PARK (KR 20160013655 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1).
Regarding claim 3, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 2.
KANG as modified fails to explicitly teach:
each of the pair of opposing electrodes has a tip surface formed flat, and an area of the tip surface of one of the pair of opposing electrodes is different from an area of the tip surface of the other.
Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) teaches a high aspect ratio weld face design for similar metal welding, wherein:
each of the pair of opposing electrodes has a tip surface formed flat (Paragraph 36, radius of curvature of the weld face 44 is planar; Paragraph 37, weld face 60 is substantially flat; each of the weld faces are thus flat), and
an area of the tip surface of one of the pair of opposing electrodes is different from an area of the tip surface of the other (Paragraph 36, weld face of the aluminum alloy welding electrode is larger than the surface area of the weld face 60 of the steel welding electrode 36).
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 KANG with Haselhuhn and have the pair of electrodes each have a tip surface be formed flat wherein the area of each of the tip surfaces is different from the other. This would have been done to facilitate welding an aluminum alloy workpiece to a steel workpiece (Haselhuhn Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 14, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 3, wherein:
one of the receiving portions (one of the top and bottom inspection grooves), which is formed on one side of the held member, is a first receiving portion, and the receiving portion formed on the other side of the held member is a second receiving portion (Figures 9-10 Paragraphs 15-23, the inspection grooves are formed on the upper and lower surfaces of the inspection block), and the first and second receiving portions comprise recesses which are open toward mutually opposite directions (Figure 5, grooves are formed in the upper and lower surfaces and are open in mutually opposite directions), and
a bottom of the recess constituting the first receiving portion and a bottom of the recess constituting the second receiving portion communicate via a through-hole (Figure 5 Paragraph 30, connecting hold 22 is formed inside the inspection block to connect the inner bottom surface of the inspection grooves).
Regarding claim 15, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 14, wherein
each of the pair of opposing electrodes comprises a rod-shaped electrode for spot welding (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, welding tips 11; Paragraph 14, spot welding machine; Figure 5, welding tips are opposing cylindrically shaped electrodes).
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 opposing electrodes be rod-shaped is not patentably distinguishable over prior art unless there exists persuasive evidence that the particular shape was significant. Furthermore, the Office notes that having opposing electrodes for spot welding be cylindrical and thus rod-shaped is well known in the art as evidenced by Yang (US 20150231729 A1).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG (KR 101298228 B1) in view of TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1) and PARK (KR 20160013655 A) as applied to claims 1, 7, 17, and 19 above respectively, and further in view of Sun (US 20040195214 A1).
Regarding claim 6, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 1.
Kang as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes.
Sun (US 20040195214 A1) teaches an electrode alignment inspector and method, wherein:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, electrode-alignment station 8 includes an inspection fixture 24 rigidly mounted in a location mirroring the flanges of the workpiece; Figure 4 Paragraph 27, inspection fixture 24 receives a pair of electrodes 40 and 42 respectively at two opposite openings)
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 KANG with Sun and have the held member rigidly mounted in a location and thus restricted from moving along a holding direction. This would have been done to allow the electrodes to be easily inspected by rotating the electrodes to the held member, while also being capable of accessing the workpiece (Sun Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 10, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination device according to claim 7.
Kang as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes.
Sun (US 20040195214 A1) teaches an electrode alignment inspector and method, wherein:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, electrode-alignment station 8 includes an inspection fixture 24 rigidly mounted in a location mirroring the flanges of the workpiece; Figure 4 Paragraph 27, inspection fixture 24 receives a pair of electrodes 40 and 42 respectively at two opposite openings)
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 KANG with Sun and have the held member rigidly mounted in a location and thus restricted from moving along a holding direction. This would have been done to allow the electrodes to be easily inspected by rotating the electrodes to the held member, while also being capable of accessing the workpiece (Sun Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 18, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination device according to claim 17.
Kang as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes.
Sun (US 20040195214 A1) teaches an electrode alignment inspector and method, wherein:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, electrode-alignment station 8 includes an inspection fixture 24 rigidly mounted in a location mirroring the flanges of the workpiece; Figure 4 Paragraph 27, inspection fixture 24 receives a pair of electrodes 40 and 42 respectively at two opposite openings)
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 KANG with Sun and have the held member rigidly mounted in a location and thus restricted from moving along a holding direction. This would have been done to allow the electrodes to be easily inspected by rotating the electrodes to the held member, while also being capable of accessing the workpiece (Sun Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 20, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination method according to claim 19.
Kang as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes.
Sun (US 20040195214 A1) teaches an electrode alignment inspector and method, wherein:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, electrode-alignment station 8 includes an inspection fixture 24 rigidly mounted in a location mirroring the flanges of the workpiece; Figure 4 Paragraph 27, inspection fixture 24 receives a pair of electrodes 40 and 42 respectively at two opposite openings)
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 KANG with Sun and have the held member rigidly mounted in a location and thus restricted from moving along a holding direction. This would have been done to allow the electrodes to be easily inspected by rotating the electrodes to the held member, while also being capable of accessing the workpiece (Sun Paragraph 25).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG (KR 101298228 B1) in view of TEZAWA (US 20240082944 A1), PARK (KR 20160013655 A), and Haselhuhn (US 20200139481 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Sun (US 20040195214 A1).
Regarding claim 16, KANG as modified teaches the opposing electrode determination device according to claim 15.
Kang as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes.
Sun (US 20040195214 A1) teaches an electrode alignment inspector and method, wherein:
the held member is restricted from moving along a holding direction of the pair of opposing electrodes (Figure 2 Paragraph 25, electrode-alignment station 8 includes an inspection fixture 24 rigidly mounted in a location mirroring the flanges of the workpiece; Figure 4 Paragraph 27, inspection fixture 24 receives a pair of electrodes 40 and 42 respectively at two opposite openings)
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 KANG with Sun and have the held member rigidly mounted in a location and thus restricted from moving along a holding direction. This would have been done to allow the electrodes to be easily inspected by rotating the electrodes to the held member, while also being capable of accessing the workpiece (Sun Paragraph 25).
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
1 The Office further notes that integrally securing a testing block to a main body such as to allow electrodes to be inserted into a top and bottom holes within the testing block is well known in the art as evidenced by Sun (US 20040195214 A1).
2 The Office further notes that integrally securing a testing block to a main body such as to allow electrodes to be inserted into a top and bottom holes within the testing block is well known in the art as evidenced by Sun (US 20040195214 A1).
3 The Office further notes that integrally securing a testing block to a main body such as to allow electrodes to be inserted into a top and bottom holes within the testing block is well known in the art as evidenced by Sun (US 20040195214 A1).
Prosecution Insights