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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/13/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of JP2020-043958 application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
Figures 2-7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because the “-“ between solid-phase, spot-welding seem like dot.
PNG
media_image1.png
106
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The preamble of claim 1 “which is a solid-phase welding method where overlapping metal plate materials and carrying out spot-welding, and is characterized in that” seems repetitive and grammatically incorrect.
Claim 7 recites “wherein there provide a cylindrical molding jig arranged so as to include the electrode”. The applicant is requested to rephrase the limitation as “a cylindrical molding jig is arranged so as to include the electrode”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 is missing a period at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: step in claim 1, 4, 6, 7, 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 cites “A solid-phase spot-welding method of metal plate materials”. Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and cite “The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material”. It is not clear if claims 2-11 are referring to a different metal plate material than that of claim 1.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and cite “the metal plate material”. However, claim 1 cites metal plate materials. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 3.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and cite “the metal plate material”. However, claim 1 cites metal plate materials. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 6.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and cite “the metal plate material”. However, claim 1 cites metal plate materials. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 7.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and cite “the metal plate material”. However, claim 1 cites metal plate materials. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamori et al., US 20180082764 (hereafter Wakamori).
Regarding claim 1,
A solid-phase spot-welding method of metal plate materials which is a solid-phase welding method (paragraph [43] teaches “When copper is softened by resistance heat, the copper materials are combined just before starting to melt, so-called diffusion, to perform solid-phase diffusion bonding.”)
where overlapping metal plate materials and carrying out spot-welding, (Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
518
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 and 2 in Wakamori
and is characterized in that the method includes a welding preparation step in which two or more metal plate materials are held in a state in which same overlap one another, (paragraph [40] teaches “Conductor 11 is placed on flat part 15 of projection 13 of conductor 12.” )
thereby forming an interface to be welded, (paragraph [40] teaches “Conductor 11 is placed on flat part 15 of projection 13 of conductor 12.” )
a temperature raising step in which a temperature of the interface to be welded is raised by energization by a pair of electrodes to form a softened region in the vicinity of the interface to be welded, (paragraph [40] teaches “Then, welding electrodes hold and press conductors 11 and 12 from both sides of conductors 11 and 12 via projection 13, and applies a current to conductors 12 ad 13. This current generates resistance heat at a portion where conductor 11 contacts projection 13. The resistance heat softens the portion where conductor 11 contacts and projection 13 while temperatures of conductors 11 and 12 are lower than both melting points of conductors 11 and 12.”)
and a stress application step in which an external stress greater than or equal to the yield strength of the metal plate materials at a desired welding temperature is applied to the softened region, wherein the metal plate materials are welded to each other by subjecting the softened region to local deformation. (paragraph [40] teaches “The pressing force from the welding electrodes allows projection 13 to be welded to conductor 11 while projection 13 is collapsed toward recess 14, thereby providing conductor assembly 16 including conductors 11 and 12 bonded to each other.”
The limitation an external stress greater than or equal to the yield strength of the metal plate materials at a desired welding temperature is applied to the softened region is interpreted as yield strength of metals decreases as temperature increases. Thus, at higher temperature metal is deformed by applying a force that is greater than yield strength at that specific temperature.
Even though Wakamori is silent about the temperature dependence of yield strength and hence force applied to deform metal, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a force that is equal or greater than yield strength of metal at the desired welding temperature to deform the metals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is a material property of metals that their yield strength, hence force needed to deform, decreases at higher temperatures and this material property allows to deform metals at lower force at higher temperatures.
Regarding claim 2,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the external stress is applied by a pressing part arranged inside or around at least one of the electrodes. (Paragraph [78] teaches “movable welding electrode 20b moves relatively toward fixed welding electrode 20a to apply a pressure to conductors 11 and 12 while sandwiching conductors 11 and 12.”)
Regarding claim 3,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the external stress is the flow stress of the metal plate material at the welding temperature. (The claim is interpreted as the external stress causes local deformation at the welding temperature without melting. Paragraph [40] teaches “The resistance heat softens the portion where conductor 11 contacts and projection 13 while temperatures of conductors 11 and 12 are lower than both melting points of conductors 11 and 12. The pressing force from the welding electrodes allows projection 13 to be welded to conductor 11 while projection 13 is collapsed toward recess 14, thereby providing conductor assembly 16 including conductors 11 and 12 bonded to each other.”)
Regarding claim 4,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the energization in the temperature raising step is a direct method, an indirect method, or a series method. (paragraph [40] teaches “Then, welding electrodes hold and press conductors 11 and 12 from both sides of conductors 11 and 12 via projection 13, and applies a current to conductors 12 ad 13.” Thus, paragraph [40] teaches a direct method.)
Regarding claim 5,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein a convex portion is provided on at least one of the metal plate materials, and the interface to be welded is formed by bringing the convex portion into contact with the other metal plate. (Fig. 1 and 2 teaches projection 13 as convex portion.)
Regarding claim 11,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 2, wherein the pressing part has a protrusion on the bottom surface of the tip portion. (Paragraph [76] teaches “the tip surface is convex”.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murayama et al., US 20200276665 (hereafter Murayama).
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the temperature of the surface of the metal plate material is lowered in the stress application step by cooling after the temperature rise. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Murayama teaches in paragraph [117] “After running the current, it is possible to remove heat by cooling the pair of electrode tips and conducting heat to the surroundings of the weld zone of the sheet combination 16 to thereby rapidly cool and make the molten metal solidify and form a nugget with an elliptical shaped cross-section at the metal sheet 15a/metal sheet 15b/metal sheet 15c.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a cooling step after temperature rise as taught in Murayama in the method of Wakamori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “to thereby rapidly cool and make the molten metal solidify and form a nugget with an elliptical shaped cross-section at the metal sheet 15a/metal sheet 15b/metal sheet 15c” as taught in paragraph [117] in Murayama.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itatsu, US 5484975 (hereafter Itatsu).
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein there provide a cylindrical molding jig arranged so as to include the electrode, (Wakamori teaches “Conductors 11 and 12 overlapping each other are tentatively fixed with a jig to avoid a positional deviation” in paragraph [73].)
and after the stress application step, the molding jig is pressed against the metal plate material to reduce the gap between the metal plate materials caused by the local deformation. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Itatsu teaches applying pressure p5 after energization is complete in Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image3.png
464
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 in Itatsu
The limitation “to reduce the gap between the metal plate materials caused by the local deformation” expresses the intended result of the process step “pressed” positively recited. MPEP 2111.04-I.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the pressurization step after energization as taught in Itatsu in the method of Wakamori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “an optimal welding condition can be provided irrespective of a thickness of work W or a material of work W, a sufficient welding strength may be obtained and a high quality of face of weld may be ensured” as taught in column 7, lines 30-35 in Itatsu.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatsuhiko, JP 2015093283 (hereafter Hatsuhiko).
Regarding claim 8,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the metal plate material contains an iron-based metal plate material and the welding temperature is set to A1 point or less of the iron-based metal plate material. (A1 point on the iron-carbon phase diagram is about 727 degrees C. The claim is interpreted as the welding temperature is 727 degrees C or less.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hatsuhiko teaches spot welding of steel plate and aluminum alloy plate in title. Hatsuhiko further teaches in page 9, paragraph 3 “when a steel plate and an aluminum alloy plate are joined by pressing, if the welding temperature exceeds 450 ° C., there is a problem that an intermetallic compound is easily generated at the interface between the steel plate and the aluminum alloy plate. For this
reason, in the present embodiment, it is preferable to set conditions such that the welding temperature is 450 ° C. or less with respect to the energization (pressurization) conditions. However, if the welding temperature
is too low, the plastic flow at the joint interface described above is difficult to occur. Therefore, it is preferable to set energization (pressurization) conditions such that the lower limit is 350 ° C.” Thus, Hatsuhiko teaches that welding temperature is maintained less than A1 point of the iron-based material.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the welding temperature to be less than A1 point as taught in Hatsuhiko in the method of Wakamori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “when a steel plate and an aluminum alloy plate are joined by pressing, if the welding temperature exceeds 450 ° C., there is a problem that an intermetallic compound is easily generated at the interface between the steel plate and the aluminum alloy plate” as taught in page 9, paragraph 3 of Hatsuhiko.
Regarding claim 9,
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the welding is a dissimilar material welding. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hatsuhiko teaches spot welding of steel plate and aluminum alloy plate in title.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the welding method to weld dissimilar materials as taught in Hatsuhiko in the method of Wakamori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “To provide a dissimilar metal joining method between a steel plate and an aluminum alloy plate, and a dissimilar metal joining joint capable of suppressing preparation of an
intermetallic compound on a weld part and capable of improving joint strength, in particular, the joint strength in the separation direction, shock resistance, fatigue strength and corrosion resistance” as taught in abstract in Hatsuhiko.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsushita et al., US 20160045976 (hereafter Matsushita).
The solid-phase spot-welding method for a metal plate material according to claim 1, wherein the change in the welding temperature is suppressed by the following (1) and/or (2): (1) Constant current density control where the current value of the energization increases as the contact area at the interface to be welded increases (2) Constant external stress control where the external load in the stress application step increases as the contact area at the interface to be welded increases (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Matsushita teaches increasing current with time as contact area increases in Fig. 3B and paragraph [70].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the step of increasing current as contact area increases as taught in Matsushita in the method of Wakamori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the current C.sub.2 is preferably set to be higher than the current C.sub.1 to prevent a decrease in current density resulting from an increase in the area of contact caused by sinking of the electrode” as taught in paragraph [70] in Matsushita.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights