DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 8-23 remain pending in the application. Claim 24 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 05/28/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 recites “the force applied to each of the two or more metallic components is between ten and thirty tons.” However, paragraph [26] of original disclosure describes
PNG
media_image1.png
280
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 22 should recite ten and thirty tons per square inch of contact area. Appropriate correction is 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 19, 21, 23.
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites “each of the two or more metallic components comprises a precipitation hardening alloy”. The applicant cites paragraphs [33, 37] of the original disclosure in support. However, paragraphs [33, 37] of the original disclosure describes that the temperature during bonding needs to be below precipitation hardening temperature for various alloys. The original disclosure does not have support for bonding two or more metallic components where each of them comprises a precipitation hardening alloy.
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) 8, 10-13, 15-16, 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris et al., US 20210254474 (hereafter Farris), and further in view of Zhang et al., CN 104690414 (hereafter Zhang), and Rudd et al., US 20150021377 (hereafter Rudd).
Regarding claim 8,
A method of bonding two or more metallic components into a single piece structural component, (Abstract teaches a method of fusing two cast portions into a blade.)
each of the two or more metallic components comprising a bonding surface, ( Paragraph [26] teaches “A further embodiment of any of the foregoing embodiments may additionally and/or alternatively include grinding cut surfaces of the first piece and second piece.” Here cut surface corresponds to bonding surface.)
the method comprising: protecting the bonding surfaces of the two or more metallic components from reaction with an environment; (Paragraph [54] teaches “An exemplary system 310 includes one or more stages of vacuum pumps (not shown) and gas cylinders (not shown—e.g., inert gas such as Ar, He, and/or N.sub.2 for preventing chemical reaction (e.g. oxidation) of the mating surfaces).”)
applying a force to the two or more metallic components to push the bonding surfaces together; (Abstract teaches “The method includes: applying a load across an assembly of a first cast portion of the airfoil and a second cast portion of the airfoil;”)
simultaneous with applying the force, passing an electric current through the bonding surfaces (Abstract teaches “applying current across a junction of the first cast portion and the second cast portion”. Paragraph [16] teaches “the applying of the load and the applying of the current being simultaneous.”)
to joule heat and solid-state bond the bonding surfaces together at a joint to form a single piece machining preform, (Paragraph [59] teaches “The contact pressure and current (and any supplemental heating are effective to achieve bonding in the solid state with the temperature not exceeding the melt point of the alloy(s) and not adversely deforming the blade or nucleating stray grain/recrystallization in the case of single crystal components. To avoid melting, the controller may be programmed with the alloy melt points and may monitor temperature via the temperature monitor 350.” Here current corresponds to joule heat.)
wherein the electric current is pulsed….(Paragraph [18] teaches “applying of the current comprising: applying pulsed DC power; and varying the pulsed DC power via temperature feedback control.”)
and wherein a temperature of the bonding surfaces is maintained below an incipient melting temperature of the two or more metallic components; (Paragraph [61] teaches “For the bonding of single crystal castings, the process should be performed in the solid state. Thus the temperature should remain below any level for which melting may occur. Such a temperature limit may be the incipient melt point of the alloy as opposed to the bulk melting temperature.”)
…material from the single piece machining preform forced out of the joint during said applying the force and said passing the electric current. (The limitation is interpreted as the step of applying the force and current forces out material from the single piece machining preform during processing. Farris teaches applying force and current pulses to the bonding surfaces. Even though Farris does not mention the term forcing out, the steps in Farris are same as the claimed limitation and thus result in the same effect.
MPEP 2111.04 sets forth that “the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).”)
Farris is silent about to induce electroplasticity in the two or more metallic components;… and subsequent to forming the single piece machining preform, machining the single piece machining preform to form the single piece structural component, wherein said machining removes material from the single piece machining preform.
Zhang teaches to induce electroplasticity in the two or more metallic components; (Zhang teaches in paragraph [3] of the attached machine translation “plastic deformation in the process of metal material to which a deformation area by direct current or pulse current exceeds a certain critical value, the material deformation resistance, drops dramatically, obviously improve plasticity phenomenon, called metal electroplasticity.”)
Even though Farris does not use the term “electroplasticity” to teach the effect of applying current simultaneously with force during welding, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to induce electroplasticity as taught in Zhang to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the electro-plastic effect can greatly improve the material forming limit, under the conventional condition is difficult to form or material of low plastic deformation processing possible” as taught in paragraph [3] in Zhang.
Primary combination of references is silent about subsequent to forming the single piece machining preform, machining the single piece machining preform to form the single piece structural component, wherein said machining removes material from the single piece machining preform.
Rudd teaches subsequent to forming the single piece machining preform, machining the single piece machining preform to form the single piece structural component, wherein said machining removes material from the single piece machining preform ( Rudd teaches in paragraph [55] “means to clean the join after it has been formed (such as a vibrator or abrading tool)”. It is implied that the abrading tool cleans whatever is left at the join.)
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 cleaning the joint by abrading as taught in Rudd to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Any remaining flux portion adhering to the joint can readily be cleaned off by abrasion and/or vibration treatment” as taught in paragraph [29] in Rudd.
Regarding claim 10,
“The method of claim 8, wherein protecting the bonding surfaces comprises applying a coating to the bonding surfaces.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Rudd teaches placing exothermic flux at the bonding surface and applying heat to form molten flux liquid in Fig. 1. Paragraph [28] teaches “The molten flux coats and cleans the pipe ends by dissolving the oxides on the two pipe ends efficiently.”)
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 coating as taught in Rudd to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to coat and clean the bonding surfaces as taught in paragraph [28] in Rudd.
Regarding claim 11,
“The method of claim 8, wherein protecting the bonding surfaces comprises shielding the bonding surfaces with a noble gas.” (Paragraph [54] in Farris teaches “An exemplary system 310 includes one or more stages of vacuum pumps (not shown) and gas cylinders (not shown—e.g., inert gas such as Ar, He, and/or N.sub.2 for preventing chemical reaction (e.g. oxidation) of the mating surfaces).”)
Regarding claim 12,
“The method of claim 8, wherein protecting the bonding surfaces comprises placing the bonding surfaces in a vacuum.”) (Fig. 5 in Farris teaches placing the bonding surfaces in a vacuum chamber 302. )
Regarding claim 13,
“The method of claim 8, wherein applying the force comprises using a press to push the bonding surfaces together.” (Fig. 5 teaches hydraulic ram system 360 presses the surfaces together.)
Regarding claim 15,
A method of bonding at least two metallic components together and forming a single structural component, each of the at least two components having a bonding surface, the method comprising:
…applying a force to each of the at least two metallic components to push the bonding surfaces together; simultaneous with applying the force, applying an electric current through the bonding surfaces to solid-state bond the at least two components together to form a single piece machining preform, wherein a temperature of the bonding surfaces is maintained below an incipient melting temperature of the at least two metallic components; and subsequent to forming the single piece machining preform, machining the single piece machining preform to form the single structural component, wherein said machining removes material from the single piece machining preform (Similar scope to claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
.. positioning each of the bonding surfaces immediately adjacent to each other; (Fig. 5 teaches a die 320 to hold the joining pieces together, and ram 360 to apply pressure to the bonding surfaces. Paragraph [59] in Farris teaches that the surfaces are bonded in solid state. It is implied that the bonding surfaces are positioned immediately adjacent to each other so they are bonded in solid state.)
.. to expose a solid-state bond region between the bonding surfaces. ( Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Rudd teaches in paragraph [55] “means to clean the join after it has been formed (such as a vibrator or abrading tool)”. It is implied that the joint is exposed after it is cleaned.)
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 cleaning the joint as taught in Rudd to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Any remaining flux portion adhering to the joint can readily be cleaned off by abrasion and/or vibration treatment” as taught in paragraph [29] in Rudd.
Regarding claim 16,
The method of Claim 15, further comprising protecting at least one of the bonding surfaces (Paragraph [54] in Farris teaches “An exemplary system 310 includes one or more stages of vacuum pumps (not shown) and gas cylinders (not shown—e.g., inert gas such as Ar, He, and/or N.sub.2 for preventing chemical reaction (e.g. oxidation) of the mating surfaces).”)
after positioning each of the bonding surfaces immediately adjacent to each other. (Fig. 5 in Farris teaches a die 320 to hold the joining pieces together, and ram 360 to apply pressure to the bonding surfaces. Paragraph [59] in Farris teaches that the surfaces are bonded in solid state. It is implied that the bonding surfaces are positioned immediately adjacent to each other so they are bonded in solid state.)
Regarding claim 19,
“The method of Claim 16, wherein protecting at least one of the bonding surfaces includes shielding at least one of the bonding surfaces by applying a continuous flow of an inert gas across the entire bonding surface being shielded prior to and during at least a portion of the steps of applying a force and applying an electric current.” (Paragraph [64] in Farris teaches “In an exemplary further sequence, the user assembles the pieces into the die and couples the ram to the die. Then, the controller may operate the pump to evacuate the chamber and the gas supply to backfill with inert gas. The controller then causes the hydraulic system to apply the target load and applies a target current while monitoring temperature.”)
Regarding claim 20,
“The method of Claim 16, wherein protecting at least one of the bonding surfaces includes coating the at least one of the bonding surfaces with a protective flux.”(Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Rudd teaches “A method of forge welding includes placing at least two components for welding together, adjacent each other and with an exothermic flux mixture placed between the components” in abstract. Here flux corresponds to the protective flux in the instant claim.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add coating of protective flux as taught in Rudd to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The molten flux coats and cleans the pipe ends by dissolving the oxides on the two pipe ends efficiently. The exothermic fluxes described herein have the advantage over traditional (non exothermic) flux in that the dissolution rate of the metal oxides coating pipe ends is increased with raised temperature” as taught in paragraph [28] in Rudd.)
Regarding claim 21,
“The method of Claim 16, wherein protecting at least one of the bonding surfaces includes placing each of the at least two components into an inert chamber or a vacuum environment prior to the step of positioning the bonding surfaces immediately adjacent to each other.”
(Paragraph [64] in Farris teaches “In an exemplary further sequence, the user assembles the pieces into the die and couples the ram to the die. Then, the controller may operate the pump to evacuate the chamber and the gas supply to backfill with inert gas. The controller then causes the hydraulic system to apply the target load and applies a target current while monitoring temperature.” Here the chamber is evacuated first, then load is applied to solid state bond the surfaces. It is implied that the bonding surfaces are positioned immediately adjacent to each other during applying pressure and current so they are bonded in solid state.)
Regarding claim 22,
“The method of Claim 15, wherein the force applied to each of the two or more metallic components is between ten and thirty tons.” (Farris teaches a load of 48 Mpa in paragraph [63] which is equivalent to 3.1 ton per square inch.
Thus, the claimed range of between about ten and thirty tons is close to the range taught in Farris. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Regarding claim 23,
“The method of Claim 15, wherein the step of applying an electric current through the bonding surfaces causes a temperature of the bonding surfaces to increase to seven hundred and two thousand one hundred degrees Fahrenheit (700⁰-2100⁰ F).” (Paragraph [63] in Farris teaches “the current was controlled to limit temperature to 2,300° F”. Thus, the claimed range of about seven hundred to two thousand one hundred degrees Fahrenheit is close to the range taught in Farris. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%).”)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris, Rudd, and Zhang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Routledge, US 9120173 (hereafter Routledge).
“The method of claim 8, wherein protecting the bonding surfaces comprises plating the bonding surfaces with a noble metal.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Routledge teaches “Whilst silver is considered the primary choice of precious metal for providing a barrier layer that does not form brittle intermetallics, it could be substituted by other elements that do not form brittle intermetallics, such as gold or platinum” in column 7, lines 25-30. Column 3, lines 1-2 teaches “The intermediate layer may be applied by electroplating.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add plating with noble metal as taught in Routledge to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for providing a barrier layer that does not form brittle intermetallics” as taught in column 7, lines 25-28 in Routledge.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris, Rudd, and Zhang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Munakata et al., US 20090110575 (hereafter Munakata).
“The method of claim 8, wherein the force and the electric current are sufficient to push out between one-hundredth inch and one-tenth inch of metal at the joint around the bonding surfaces.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Munakata teaches metal pushed out at the joint around the bonding surfaces in Fig. 15 wherein Fig. 4 teaches welding is performed by supplying a current under pressure. Fig. 7 teaches that amount of metal pushed out is such that the overflow pieces 90 are constrained within grooves 101 and 102. However, Munakata is silent about the exact amount of metal to be pushed out. MPEP 2144.04-II sets forth ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”. Additionally, the original disclosure describes in paragraph [34] “The applied force and electric energy should be sufficient to push out approximately between one hundredths inch and one tenth inch of metal 132 around the joint, as depicted in FIG. 5, to facilitate a visual or physical check for achieving full metallurgical bonding at the joint.” Thus, the amount of metal pushed out is not critical as long as the overflow piece is visible. Munakata teaches visible overflow pieces in Fig. 15.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply force and current to push out between one-hundredth inch and one-tenth inch of metal at the joint as taught in Munakata to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “At the mirror-like surfaces, both metals form a tight weld surface by diffusion welding of an atomic level, thereby to further constitute a welding connection surface that does not easily cause axial sliding on the weld surface, that is, a large frictional resistance surface due to adhesion” as taught in paragraph [98] in Munakata.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris, Rudd, and Zhang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Routledge.
Regarding claim 17,
“The method of Claim 16, wherein protecting at least one of the bonding surfaces includes plating the at least one of the bonding surface with a noble metal.” (Similar scope to claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 18,
“The method of Claim 17, wherein plating at least one of the bonding surfaces includes applying a layer of gold, palladium, or platinum to at least one of the bonding surfaces.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Routledge teaches “Whilst silver is considered the primary choice of precious metal for providing a barrier layer that does not form brittle intermetallics, it could be substituted by other elements that do not form brittle intermetallics, such as gold or platinum” in column 7, lines 25-30. Column 3, lines 1-2 teaches “The intermediate layer may be applied by electroplating.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add plating with noble metal as taught in Routledge to the method in Farris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for providing a barrier layer that does not form brittle intermetallics” as taught in column 7, lines 25-28 in Routledge.)
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farris, Rudd, and Zhang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fujimoto et al., US 10265797 (hereafter Fujimoto).
The method of claim 8, wherein….and wherein the temperature of the bonding surfaces is further maintained below a precipitation hardening temperature of each said precipitation hardening alloy. (The claim is interpreted as the temperature is maintained to prevent formation of detrimental phases as described in paragraph [30] of the original disclosure “Stainless steels and nickel base alloys may be heated at the joint to near the solution treating temperature and below the incipient melting temperature, and also to prevent formation of detrimental phases such as delta ferrite for corrosion resistant precipitation hardening steels, sigma phase, or laves phase for nickel base superalloys.”
Farris teaches “the temperature should remain below any level for which melting may occur. Such a temperature limit may be the incipient melt point of the alloy as opposed to the bulk melting temperature. To maintain the single crystal nature of each workpiece the load should be below that which causes any of the following: stray grain nucleation; recrystallization; and/or substantial adverse plastic deformation” in paragraph [61].)
each of the two or more metallic components comprises a precipitation hardening alloy, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fujimoto teaches resistance spot welding of precipitation hardened steels in column 7, lines 25-26.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method in Farris to weld precipitation hardening steels as taught in Fujimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the usage is increasing of various high tensile steel sheets as automotive materials, in order to achieve lighter weight vehicle bodies and to improve crash safety” as taught in column 5, lines 4-6 in Fujimoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/27/2026 with respect to claim(s) 8-24 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argued on page 7 of the remarks that Farris does not teach electroplasticity. However, claim 8 recites “the electric current is pulsed to induce electroplasticity”. The limitation “to induce electroplasticity” is the intended result of a positively recited process step of “the electric current is pulsed” as set forth in MPEP 2111.04-I. Farris teaches applying pulsed electric current simultaneously with applying force to bond metals without melting. Even though Farris does not mention the term electroplasticity, the steps in Farris are same as the claimed limitation and thus result in the same effect.
In response to applicant's argument on pages 7-8 that Zhang teaches electroplasticity in background art, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The examiner did not rely on Zhang’s ultrasonic device to teach any limitation of the instant claim. The examiner relied on Zhang’s paragraph [3] only to teach the definition and application of electroplasticity known in the art.
The applicant argued on pages 7-8 that Zhang’s ultrasonic invention would not combine with Farris’s teaching of melt free solid state bonding. However, the examiner did not rely on to combining Zhang’s ultrasonic invention to Farris, rather the examiner relied on Zhang’s description of electroplasticity to teach that Farris’s method of simultaneous application of force and current results to induce electroplasticity.
The applicant argued on page 9 that Rudd does not remove any material of the workpiece. However, paragraph [55] in Rudd teaches “means to clean the join after it has been formed (such as a vibrator or abrading tool)”. It is implied that the abrading tool cleans any extra material from the join after it has been formed.
The applicant’s argument on page 9 against claim 14 is persuasive and hence the rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art.
The applicant argued on page 10 that implied is not a teaching. MPEP 2144.01 sets forth “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (A process for catalytically producing carbon disulfide by reacting sulfur vapor and methane in the presence of charcoal at a temperature of "about 750-830°C" was found to be met by a reference which expressly taught the same process at 700°C because the reference recognized the possibility of using temperatures greater than 750°C. The reference disclosed that catalytic processes for converting methane with sulfur vapors into carbon disulfide at temperatures greater than 750°C (albeit without charcoal) was known, and that 700°C was "much lower than had previously proved feasible."); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R' portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”
The applicant argued on pages 10-11 that claim 22 recites force, and force is expressed in ton. However, paragraph [26] of original disclosure describes
PNG
media_image1.png
280
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
According to the applicant’s own disclosure claim 22 should recite ten and thirty tons per square inch.
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